Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

TAMAR BRIDGE BILL

Lords amendments agreed to.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
(By Order)

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
(By Order)

COUNTY OF MERSEYSIDE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

EAST KILBRIDE DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

British Broadcasting Corporation

Mr. Madden: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received in favour of financing the BBC from the Exchequer.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Joel Barnett): Apart from some of my hon. Friends, very few.

Mr. Madden: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that financing the BBC by means of the television licence is an extremely unfair and unsatisfactory system and that many people, especially the retired and low-paid workers, find it extremely difficult to pay the current licence fee? Does he not also agree that the administrative costs are very high and that the evasion level is growing? Will he join with his right hon. Friends in the Home Office in an urgent and proper investigation into how the BBC can be financed from the Exchequer?

Mr. Barnett: I agree with some part of what my hon. Friend said, but I am sure that he will recognise that any of the alternatives also raises problems. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has indicated that he has initiated studies which, as my hon. Friend will know, will include other methods of financing the BBC out of taxation. All these matters will be discussed, though entirely without commitment on the Government's behalf.

Mr. Forman: At the end of those proposed studies, will the Chief Secretary bear in mind the need to resist the siren calls for doing what the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) suggests, first, because television is not a social service, secondly because United Kingdom licence fees are well below European levels and could usefully be raised, and, thirdly, because there is always the danger of political control if television is financed in the way suggested?

Mr. Barnett: I know what the hon. Gentleman says. I never think of my hon. Friend's requests as being siren calls. He puts his requests assiduously and well.


I do not necessarily agree with all the points that he makes. If we are to have a study, let us have it and see what the results are.

Inflation

Mr. Watkinson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present level of inflation.

Mr. Temple-Morris: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current rate of inflation.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Denis Healey: The year-on-year increase in the retail price index for December 1978 was 8·4 per cent.

Mr. Watkinson: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that there is no pay explosion at present, as recent figures have indicated? If there are agreements on phased comparability awards in the public sector, will he be able to consider a cut in interests rates in the near future?

Mr. Healey: As to the first question, there is certainly no pay explosion. On the other hand, the average of settlements is somewhat above that envisaged in the Government White Paper last year, and in time that is bound to have its effect on prices. On the second question, I am not clear about any necessary relationship between comparability awards and the increase in the minimum lending rate.

Mr. Powell: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the attainment of the Prime Minister's objective of an inflation rate of 5 per cent. or less within three years depends primarily upon the contents of his Budget this year and next?

Mr. Healey: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's confidence in my durability in this office. The contents of my Budget this year and next will, of course, include relevant factors, but I do not share the right hon. Gentleman's view that what happens to pay settlements depends wholly on what happens to the money supply. If that were the case, the gross excess in money supply in Germany and Switzerland would have consequences for the inflation rate in those countries, of which there is no sign.

Mr. MacFarquhar: Does my right hon. Friend still hold to the view put forward by the Prime Minister at the Labour

Party conference, namely, that, if pay settlements cannot be kept within the 5 per cent. norm, the Chancellor will have to take budgetary measures to correct the situation?

Mr. Healey: I have said on many occasions, both in this House and elsewhere, that the Government will stick to their fiscal and monetary policy. In recent weeks we have proved our resolve in both these regards, and I think that is one reason for the stability of sterling at the present time.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: May I underline the point with which the Chancellor last dealt by asking him to confirm his acceptance of the advice of the Governor of the Bank of England today that it would be fatal to accommodate inflationary pay settlements by relaxing either monetary or fiscal policy? In view of the fact that at least two large sections of public sector workers have now received pay settlements of 9 per cent.—plus 7 per cent. for productivity in one case and an unknown sum in the other—does he not recognise that if fiscal policy is to be kept under control it will be essential for him to abandon his plans to increase public spending next year?

Mr. Healey: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for drawing my attention to the speech made by the Governor of the Bank of England yesterday. I hope that he noted the welcome which the Governor gave to the joint TUC-Government statement yesterday, which was in sharp distinction to the crabbed response of the right hon. Lady and the right hon. and learned Gentleman on television last night. As to pay settlements and fiscal policy, I have made it clear on many occasions—indeed, I did so a moment ago—that the Government intend to stick to their fiscal and monetary policy. We have proved our will and ability to do so.

City Institutions (Wilson Report)

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is able to estimate the date of publication of the Wilson committees' report on City institutions.

Mr. Healey: I understand that the committee on the functioning of financial institutions hopes to complete its work in the latter part of this year.

Mr. McCrindle: As there is widespread expectation that that report, whenever it appears, will recommend some degree of direction of the investment of the institutions, and in view of the recent speech of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in which he said that such direction "was not on", will not the Chancellor have great difficulty in implementing this report, no matter when it is delivered?

Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman should not pay too much attention to gossip which from time to time he reads in newspapers. As to what my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has said, I cannot recall any occasion on which I have disagreed with him since we both entered the Treasury five years ago.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House why it is that this committee is not examining those financial institutions which operate in the United Kingdom but which are registered in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man? For example, recent figures for total companies' distribution have shown that there is one company registered in Jersey for every six of its population, whereas in the United Kingdom the ratio is 1 to 72.

Mr. Healey: I am afraid I am not able to say precisely what the Wilson committee is examining. It is an independent committee established by the Government. However, I have no doubt that it is examining all matters which are relevant to its terms of reference.

Mr. Brooke: Will the Chancellor acknowledge that one of the benefits of setting up the Wilson committee has been the quite outstanding quality of the evidence submitted by City institutions?

Mr. Healey: I would certainly go so far as to say that one of the benefits of the Wilson committee's investigations has been to elicit explanation and description from City institutions which previously have preferred to keep their doings, shall I say, discreetly covered.

Budget

Mr. Rost: asked Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is yet able to announce when he expects to present his next Budget.

Mr. Healey: An announcement will be made in due course.

Mr. Rost: Should not the Chancellor tell us now when he next expects to punish the British people for his irresponsible overspending? Will it be before or after the election?

Mr. Healey: I suspect that I shall do that when the hon. Gentleman stops beating his wife.

Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the studies about switching television licensing to the Treasury will be completed in time for any Budget announcement? I am sure he will recognise that many of the anomalies which at present cause severe difficulties would be very welcome if it could be indicated that during the current year something will be done about the matter. Will he assure the House that in any case the Budget will not be a hair shirt Budget?

Mr. Healey: The time when the report will be submitted is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Of course, I shall take account of all relevant considerations in framing my Budget. Whether the vestment is made of hair, silk or some other fabric, remains to be seen.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: In preparing for his Budget, what allowances is the Chancellor making for the effect of recent events in Iran on the British economy? In that Budget, what specific plans is he making to compensate for higher oil and gas prices, for the loss of major export contracts, for the wiping out, perhaps, of much of the ECGD's reserves, and for the default in payments to major British companies?

Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman's delight in gloomy prognostication is typical of his party. Of course, what has happened in Iran continues to happen, and that will have an important impact, not only on the economy of this country but on the economies of all countries in the developed world. It is far too early to form a final view of this, but I shall have to form a provisional view by the time that I present my Budget.

Mr. Lawson: Is the Chancellor aware that before presenting his Budget he is committed to presenting the cash limits


for the coming year—1979–80? Is he further aware that in the economic debate three weeks ago he said that these would be published within a few weeks? What is the reason for this further delay? Is it that the Government cannot agree on what should be the payroll increase for the coming year, or are there more fundamental Cabinet difficulties? Can the Chancellor now say when the cash limits will be published?

Mr. Healey: I am aware of all relevant considerations, including those which the hon. Gentleman has just drawn to my attention. When I spoke in the debate a fortnight ago I made it clear that the cash limits would be published within a few weeks. Two weeks have since passed, and they will be published very shortly.

Investment Income

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now reaggregate the investment income of children with that of their parents.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Sheldon): I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I am not at present in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Price: Does my right hon. Friend remember that as long ago as 1968 Mr. Roy Jenkins carried out this reform, which was changed by the Conservative Party and has never been put right? Is he aware that, if there are any further public expenditure cuts affecting the public education system, any failure to act on tax fiddles of this kind—which bolster the private education system—would be an absolute scandal from a Labour Government?

Mr. Sheldon: My hon. Friend is talking about one aspect of aggregation, but he will recall that we have moved from child tax allowances to child benefit, and there is a linking between these two problems. At a later stage there will be a Green Paper on the taxation of the family, which will deal in part with the matter with which he is concerned.

National Debt

Mr. Gow: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount of the national debt on 1 March 1974 and

on the latest available date; what was the amount of interest on the debt for the year ended 5 April 1974; and what is his latest estimate of the interest on debts during the current financial year.

Mr. Joel Barnett: The amount of the national debt on 31 March 1974 was £40,458 million and on 31 March 1978 was £79,180 million, or roughly £42,400 million in March 1974 prices.
The interest paid in 1973–74 was £2,284 million. The estimate of interest payable in 1978–79 is £6,300 million, or roughly £3,000 million in 1973–74 prices.

Mr. Gow: Do not these figures underline the extent to which there has been massive overspending by the Government during the last five years? Does the Chief Secretary understand that this debt and the Government's borrowing requirement are the primary causes of the present unexceptionable—outrageously high—interest rates?

Mr. Barnett: So far as I could hear what the hon. Member said, he was wrong in every respect. The national debt, as a percentage of GDP at market prices in the financial years 1973–74 to 1977–78, has fallen from 56 per cent. to 54½ per cent. The views on debt of Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), bear all the hallmarks of an incompetent, wealthy and amateur business man, who is so well represented on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Cryer: Here is another one.

Mr. Peter Rees: Instead of insulting my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), will the Chief Secretary correct his figures and tell the House that the interest on public sector debt for 1978–79 will be about £8½ billion? Will he attempt to justify to the House policies which over five years have raised the cost of servicing the public sector debt above, for example, the cost of defence?

Mr. Barnett: That is an interesting question. It is not connected with the one that I was asked, but I shall answer it. I was asked about the national debt. The interest on the national debt as a percentage of GDP at market prices has risen from 3¼ per cent. in 1975–74 to 3½per cent. in 1977–78. The percentage of GDP represented by the public sector borrowing requirement in the United


Kingdom is not wildly out of line with that in many other countries.

TUC

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met representatives of the TUC.

Mr. Ashton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had recently with the Trades Union Congress on pay policy.

Mr. Healey: With my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I met representatives of the TUC yesterday, when we discussed various economic matters, including pay.

Mr. Hamilton: Can my right hon Friend say whether, in the course of those discussions, anything was leaked to the press which gives substance to the report in The Guardian this morning that there is likely to be a settlement this weekend for the health workers and local government employees of about 9 per cent., with a promise of an additional payment in August? Is he aware that, if that report is true, my hon. Friends and I would welcome it?

Mr. Healey: There was no discussion on individual negotiations at my meeting with the TUC yesterday.

Mr. Cormack: Since the Chancellor has kindly told us how often he has disagreed with the Chief Secretary, can he say how often he has disagreed with the TUC and who has won the argument?

Mr. Healey: The TUC and I have not always agreed on all matters. I shall be able to make an estimate of where the honours lay and how the match turned out when I leave this office, which, it has been suggested, will be in at least 14 months' time.

Mr. Ashton: Will my right hon. Friend attempt to continue the discussions with the TUC on the synchronisation of pay claims and awards? Is not the mood now right for further discussions on this matter? Would it not be a grave mistake not to pursue this in the present climate?

Mr. Healey: My hon. Friend is right that the mood for making progress in many of the difficult areas of pay is appropriate at present. The statement

published yesterday, which was agreed by the Government and the TUC, involved a large number of matters, such as the establishment of adequate comparability, dealing properly with relativities and trying to arrange that certain groups forgo the right of industrial action in return for guaranteed treatment of their pay. All those maters are ripe for discussion. I hope that in the coming weeks we shall reach agreement on them and prove how wrong the Opposition are in believing that such matters can be dealt with by the force of law, since that has failed so often in the past.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As the Chancellor has said, the White Paper deals with many matters. May I remind the Chancellor that, when he spoke in the House three—not two—weeks ago, he stressed that the Government would not accommodate excessive wage increases in the public sector by increasing cash limits and that the cash limits would reflect the Government's pay guidelines? In view of the importance that the Chancellor attaches to cash limits, why is there no reference to them in the White Paper? Did he try to secure a reference to them and an understanding of their importance by the TUC and fail, or did he just forget?

Mr. Healey: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is inaccurate, as always. The speech to which he referred was made 16 days ago, on Tuesday of the week before last. On this, as on so many matters, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is sloppy in his regard to the facts.
The question of cash limits is a matter for the Government, as are many other matters which were not referred to in the joint statement published yesterday. I made it clear in my speech in the House that the Government are not prepared, if there is an excess in wage settlements, to increase cash limits accordingly. That will become clear when we publish the cash limits in the next week or two.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Can my right hon. Friend say anything further about the reference in the White Paper to urgent consultations on relativities? Is he aware that many hon. Members on this side of the House know that it is no good operating an economic forum and an agreement about the overall level of settlements when


there is no agreement about relativities? Can my right hon. Friend give us some news about that?

Mr. Healey: My hon. Friend must not be too hasty. This matter was referred to in a statement which was finally concluded yesterday morning and presented to the House yesterday afternoon. The important thing about the statement is that it recognises that it is not possible for every group to improve its relative position and that the concept of a going rate which rises continuously because people build on previous settlements is self-defeating.
I and my colleagues will be entering into discussions with the TUC in the next week to decide how we develop institutions and other arrangements which will reflect that insight. I have no doubt that we shall be able to bring our conclusions to the House in the near future.

Mr. Raison: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer think that it is right that all these issues involving incomes policy should be settled by private argument between the Government and the TUC without the House of Commons having any say at all?

Mr. Healey: The House has had a great deal of say on these matters. We have had many debates. I regret that the Opposition, in their enthusiasm for free collective bargaining, have helped to land us with the problems which the country now faces and from which the Government and the TUC are determined to extricate it.

Value Added Tax

Mr. Townsend: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will seek to alter the current value added tax rates.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement.

Mr. Townsend: Will the Financial Secretary ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give careful consideration to introducing a single rate of VAT at 10 per cent? Bearing in mind the expected rates of inflation, is it not time the threshold was raised further?

Mr. Sheldon: The threshold has been raised regularly in the last few years. It

is now almost as high as that which is permitted under the harmonisation of the Community arrangements. The hon. Member referred to a uniform rate of VAT. That is a matter which falls to be decided at the time of the Budget.
I remind the hon. Member that we are receiving a useful revenue from the higher rate. That is a matter which is frequently overlooked and the revenue would have to be made good some other way.

Mr. George Rodgers: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that elderly people whose State pensions are their only form of income could not benefit from any gestures involving income tax if VAT were to be raised?

Mr. Sheldon: I understand my hon. Friend's case. He will be aware that we have committed ourselves to a move towards obtaining a greater amount of revenue from indirect taxation as opposed to direct taxation over tile period ahead. He will also be aware that we have failed to revalorise indirect taxes over a long period. In particular, I refer him to the vehicle excise duty, which is at a rather low level by comparison with its level in real terms only a few years ago.

Mr. Peter Rees: Will the right hon. Gentleman reassure the House that, if he is unable to persuade his right hon. Friends to moderate public expenditure, direct taxation will not be increased, that the Government will not shirk their obligation to adjust personal allowances and that they will prefer instead, as he has indicated, to review indirect taxation?

Mr. Sheldon: I should be more convinced by that argument if the hon. and learned Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends had not voted against the increase in vehicle excise duty. Having stated how strongly they were in favour of the move towards indirect taxation, when the time came for a decision they forgot what they had said.

Public Sector Borrowing Requirement

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the light of current wage settlements, he proposes to revise the public sector borrowing requirement figures for next year given in the Government expenditure White Paper; and, if so, when he will announce the details.

Mr. Joel Barnett: I have nothing at present to add to what my right hon. Friend told the House in the debate on 25th January.

Mr. Renton: Does the Chief Secretary remember that the Government borrowing requirement of £7·8 million that appeared in the White Paper was predicated on earnings increases of only 7 per cent. in the coming year? It was added that if earnings rose beyond that the Government's revenue would not rise as fast as Government expenditure. Bearing in mind that earnings look like rising by a figure in excess of 11 per cent., is the right hon. Gentleman committed to ensuring that the borrowing requirement next year is not in excess of the figure quoted in the White Paper?

Mr. Barnett: Yes.

Mr. Ridley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the deteriorating economic situation the worst way to deal with the problem is to continue to raise interest rates, which makes investment more expensive and growth and jobs more unlikely to be achieved in future? Does he accept that he should be curtailing public expenditure so that we may live within our means?

Mr. Barnett: I always find it remarkable that the Opposition are constantly telling us to curtail expenditure, as the hon. Gentleman puts it so delicately. They mean that we should cut public services—

Mr. Ridley: Yes.

Mr. Barnett: —when if anything they need to be improved. The hon. Gentleman says "Yes". The only public services that Conservatives talk about in the House are those on which they want an increased amount spent. If they would spell out where they want to see public services cut or charges made for them, we would be able to listen to them more carefully. They have never been credible and they continue to be incredible. When Opposition Members refer to a deteriorating economic situation, they are wrong. There is no sign yet that the pay out-turn will be as poor as the Opposition are so gleefully expecting. I hope that they will be with us in wanting to see a moderate pay outturn. That is what we are seeking to achieve.

Mr. Cryer: Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the hypocrisy of the Opposition? Is he aware that they talk about cutting public expenditure in a variety of ways but run an advertising campaign criticising the National Health Service? They queue up eagerly at every Government Department to ask for more money for industry or public services within their constituencies.

Mr. Barnett: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. He knows how much I like to agree with him. It does not happen too often, so I am glad to have the chance. As I have said, my hon. Friend is right. However, I would not want to use his language. He knows how moderate I am on these matters. However, on this occasion I go even further and say how hypocritical the Opposition are in their demands for increased expenditure on almost every subject for which I am responsible.

Mr. Lawson: The House will have noticed the Chief Secretary showing all the bluster of a deeply worried man, as well he may be as he has reiterated the pledge given by the Chancellor that the public sector borrowing requirement for the coming year will not exceed the figure in the White Paper, which is £8½ billion in money terms. Is he not aware that the prospect now, if no changes are made, is something substantially in excess of that figure, in which case the Government are bound either to cut public expenditure or increase taxation? Which is it to be?

Mr. Barnett: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes a view of what he sees that is different from that taken by other hon. Members. It seems a pity that there are not cameras around the Chamber to portray just how worried I look. The hon. Gentleman asks what we shall do to meet our borrowing requirement target. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that neither he nor anybody else knows yet what it will be for next year. We do not know what the pay out-turn will be. My right hon. Friend has indicated what it might be in certain hypothetical circumstances, but it is far too early to jump to the conclusion that we shall have the gloomy out-turn that the Opposition are so happy to prognosticate.

Mr. Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Following the Chief Secretary's


answer to this question, I give notice that at the earliest possible opportunity I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

European Community (Finance Ministers)

Mr. Marten: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to meet the other Common Market Finance Ministers.

Mr. Healey: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold) on 18 January.

Mr. Marten: In view of the appalling net annual cost of Britain's membership of the Common Market, what will the Government propose to the other member States by way of getting some reduction of the net annual cost? How far is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to go to ensure that he gets a net annual reduction, which may help to answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley)?

Mr. Healey: I have made it clear to the House on many occasions, as have my right hon. Friends, that the cost to the United Kingdom of the budgetary contribution to the European Community is grossly excessive. We are now negotiating with our partners to reduce it. The main area in which improvement is needed is the cost of the common agricultural policy. I know that the hon. Gentleman approves of the robust action taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in seeking to redress the balance in that area.

Mr. Watkinson: Has my right hon. Friend discussed with his colleagues in Euprope the French proposal to do away with monetary compensatory amounts? Does he agree that, if the monetary compensatory amounts were done away with and common prices were adopted throughout Europe, the result would be a totally unacceptable burden for the British people to bear?

Mr. Healey: We have made that clear on many occasions to our partners in the Community. We have said that we are not prepared to accept a settlement of the

argument between the German and French Governments that would lead to higher food prices for the British consumer. I shall re-emphasise that point when I meet my colleagues at the Finance Council on Monday.

Mr. Peter Rees: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity of that meeting to tell his Finance Minister colleagues and this opportunity to tell the House when Britain will honour its obligation to move to the free transferability of capital inside the Common Market? Will he take the opportunity to reassure the House that he will not erect an apparatus of exchange control between this country and Eire?

Mr. Healey: I regret to say that the Irish Government have already erected an apparatus of exchange control for transfers between Eire and the United Kingdom. We have made it clear that we would be prepared to do so if the European monetary system came into operation and that led to a divergence in value between the Irish pound and the English pound. That is well understood on both sides of the Irish Sea.
The hon. and learned Gentleman studies these matters and he will know that exchange controls on movement of capital are operated by a number of European countries to protect elements in their economic performance. We are no exception. We have no intention of being an exception to that general rule.

Pay Norm

Mr. Timothy Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current pay norm.

Mr. Healey: The Government remains committed to the policies set out in the White Paper "Winning the Battle Against Inflation" with the modification of the £3·50 underpinning for low-paid workers.

Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has not answered the question that I put on the Order Paper, which concerns the current pay norm and is not about the Government's supposed pay policy? Does he appreciate that the pay norm regarded as about 20 per cent. in the private sector and 16 per cent. in the public sector? What action are the Government taking to counter that view,


which was created by the Government as a result of their 5 per cent. policy? Will the Government explain to the public that if some workers are to get more others must automatically get less?

Mr. Healey: I am tempted to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is still beating his wife. The White Paper to which I referred laid down a 5 per cent. limit in normal cases, with £44·50 underpinning for very low-paid workers, provision for special cases and provision for self-financing productivity deals. These elements of flexibility were further increased by the statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the House last month.

As to the going rate, or the average level of settlements in the private sector —to which, I suspect, the hon. Gentleman may belong—he should know that both the Department of Employment and the CBI data bank show that the average level of settlements in the private sector to date has been under 10 per cent.—about 8 per cent. if we include self-financing productivity deals. The hon. Gentleman does no good to the national interest by peddling this figure of 20 per cent., which has been achieved in only two cases in the whole of the private sector, 30 per cent. of which has already settled in the present round.

Mr. Spriggs: Will my right hon. Friend say what the cost would be if nurses and other National Health Service and public employees were paid an increase up to the level of two-thirds of the average wage?

Mr. Healey: I am not able, without notice, to give a specific figure. However, my hon. Friend must bear in mind that there is no point in raising the pay of low-paid workers to two-thirds of the average earnings if better paid workers then insist on restoring their differentials with the lower paid workers. That point was made with great force to me in my discussions with the TUC recently. It is because of the impossibility of improving the real condition of the low paid without dealing with the problem of differentials and relativities that the Government and the TUC have agreed to find a common solution to the problem.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Chancellor reminded the House of the original pay limits adopted by the Government, sub-

ject to the modification made by the Prime Minister in January. Will he confirm—as it is important—that the cash limits to be published in a week or two will reflect precisely those pay guidelines? Will he also emphasise that if pay bargaining is to be consistent with those cash limits, problems of overmanning in the public sector must be tackled along the lines proposed by Mr. Frank Chapple.

Mr. Healey: I have made the point on many occasions that excessive settlements in the public sector are bound to lead to a reduction in manpower in the public sector. My views on cash limits were carefully explained to the House in general in the debate 16 days ago. The detailed cash limits will begin to be presented, as is normal, to this House in a week or two.

Fuel Tax

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the general aviation industry concerning the change from vehicle excise duty to petrol tax.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: I have reecived representations from general aviation interests and private flying associations that either the proposed increase in light oil taxation should not apply to aviation spirit or compensating relief should be given from other charges connected with light aviation.

Mr. Tebbit: As the Minister said that the object of the change was not to increase revenue, would he not agree that to impose an extra £2 million of taxation on this small industry is unfair? Is he aware that aviation fuel is currently 25 per cent. more expensive than motor fuel? Therefore, even with an increase of 20p or 30p per gallon in tax there would be no incentive on motorists to use aviation fuel and therefore no risk of loss of revenue.

Mr. Sheldon: Yes. The difficulty is that the Customs and Excise tax the fuel and not the purpose for which the fuel is intended. As a result, there are obvious control difficulties. This is a complication that the hon. Gentleman is trying to introduce into the operation of the tax. No final decisions have been taken on these matters. There is scope yet for


Consultation. The phasing period is lengthy, during which time these consultations may proceed.

Mr. Wells: Is the Minister aware that a marked proportion of horticultural production still uses petrol-driven tractors? An increase in petrol duty will mean a direct increase in the price of horticulural produce, which is approximately one-third of the value of everybody's food?

Mr. Sheldon: Yes. I am aware of the problems to which the hon. Gentleman refers. He will be aware that there will be a number of discussions to deal with these precise points. A number of discussion documents are yet to be issued. These points may be examined in due course.

Vehicle Excise Duty

Mr. Knox: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what representations he has received concerning the proposed phasing out of vehicle excise duty.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: I have received representations from organisations representing motorists, petrol retailers, general retail traders, rural motorists and tourist interests, and non-road users of petrol. I have also received letters from about 60 private individuals.

Mr. Knox: Will the Government reconsider the decision to phase out the vehicle excise licence? Does not the Minister realise that it will adversely affect financially many of my constituents who live in rural areas, many of whom are not well off?

Mr. Sheldon: I am aware of many of these points. They were debated last year. Some recent estimates precisely on this matter have been made by the Department of Transport which suggest that a private rural motorist on the average annual mileage should find his motoring costs increased by only about 3p per week and that about 50 per cent. of private rural motorists will break even or gain from the changeover. This is a lengthy period of changeover. Discussions may take place on the documents that will be issued in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions — TUC

Mr. Wrigglesworth: asked the Prime Minister, when he last met the Trades Union Congress.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I met the general council of the Trades Union Congress yesterday. Further meetings will be arranged as necessary.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does the Prime Minister recall the statement made by the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition four weeks ago in which she said that she would support action on secret ballots, picketing and other matters mentioned in yesterday's statement? Is not it therefore deeply disappointing to those who want to reach agreement and consensus on these matters that there has been neither a shred of support nor a word of welcome for yesterday's statement by my right hon. Friend?

The Prime Minister: I get the impression that the people of this country want the proposals contained in the document to work and that therefore they are more concerned with that than anybody's instant reactions. They want to see us move into a new approach both to industrial relations and to reaching a proper economic assessment.
I was glad that the CBI spokesman said that the CBI was willing to begin discussions on the basis proposed, so that the TUC, the Government and the CBI will be able to start talking about these matters.

Mr. Powell: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the objective of the TUC and the Government to see a 5 per cent., or lower, rate of inflation in three years is fully attainable provided that non-inflationary Budgets this year and next are proposed by the Government and accepted by the House?

The Prime Minister: There is no doubt that a non-inflationary Budget has an important part to play in this matter. However, it is necessary to work towards these desirable instruments. That is why a period of three years was set down.

Mr. Whitney: At his next meeting, will the Prime Minister seek to clarify the concept of the authority of the TUC to


which so much reference was made in the soggy document he produced in the House yesterday and on which the temporary cease-fire is based? Will he also explain to the House what changes are in prospect in the relationship between the general council of the TUC and the constituent unions so that the concept of the authority of the TUC may be realised?

The Prime Minister: The relationship between the TUC and its constituent unions is neither a matter for me nor a matter that I should answer at the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is considerable opinion among some trade unionists who were present yesterday that the Government have now reached the conclusion that they should introduce import controls as recommended by the sector working parties? Will he confirm that, where reference is made in the statement to the introduction of statutory planning agreements, the document is not as bogus as suggested by the Opposition?

The Prime Minister: Whenever the sector working parties have recommended import controls, they have been carefully examined by the Government and on occasion have been introduced. I know of no outstanding case—although I would want to refresh my memory—where there is a serious dispute. My hon. Friend may have been referring to the fact that the sector working parties have set what they call import penetration targets, and that is a different matter.

Mr. Blaker: asked the Prime Minister when he last met the Trades Union Congress.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth).

Mr. Blaker: Is the Prime Minister aware that two trade union leaders have said that the concordat contains an escape clause? Does it contain such a clause? If so, by whom can it be invoked? Is the Prime Minister sure that the concordat should not be given its French meaning—an agreement by a bankrupt with his creditors?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman's last remarks go to show how wise

I was—but entirely in ignorance—in refusing to adopt this name as the title of the document. I had to say yesterday that this name is an invention of the media and, as far as I know, has never been used by anybody else.
The document sets out several objectives. It is now for the Trades Union Congress, the Government and the CBI to try to clothe some of those concepts and to give them real meaning. I believe that we have an opportunity—[Interruption.] I do not expect to convince Conservative Members, but I believe that we have an opportunity to give those concepts real meaning.

Mr. Stan Crowther: Will my right hon. Friend make clear that the Government and the TUC are now agreed that this country cannot go on indefinitely getting its public services on the cheap and that, if we expect to have an efficient local government service, if we want wholesome water at the turn of a tap, and if we want a Health Service worthy of a civilised nation, we shall have to pay for them, even if it means spending a little less as a nation on something else?

The Prime Minister: It is always the case that there must be balance between private consumers' expenditure, investment, savings and public expenditure. As to the public services, there is now, and has been for nearly a week, the basis for an honourable settlement on the pay of the employees of local authorities. I hope that the employers and the unions will come to grips with this matter quickly and achieve a settlement. I believe that it could have been obtained during the middle of this week. I ask the parties most urgently to get together and bring this matter to a conclusion.

Mrs. Thatcher: Does the Prime Minister recall saying last July that he was not a closed shop man? In his discussions with the TUC, therefore, did he seek any assurance whatever that the unions would now be prepared to reinstate workers who have lost their jobs because of the closed shop? In the light of the Prime Minister's own views, how did he come to agree to a document which permits blacking as a means of achieving a closed shop?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady is quoting only one half of the


statement and I should like to quote the other half, which is the part that I prefer, namely, that it is for the unions to convince workers in industries and companies, by the merits of the unions, that they should be members of those unions, rather than to rely on any other method. That is what I believe should animate attempts to secure a closed shop.

Mrs. Thatcher: In that case, the Prime Minister cannot have approved the document which came before us yesterday.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady is wrong. The document is approved by the Government as a whole, and it will be necessary for all the elements of that document to be taken into account in future negotiations on the closed shop, on secret ballots, and on all the other issues that it contains.

Mr. Grimond: As the Prime Minister has said that an honourable settlement in the public authorities dispute is obtainable, will he spell out quite clearly at what level the settlement should be now, since the public authorities are still defending the Government's policy, not their own, and that, only a week or two ago, was for a 5 per cent. increase?

The Prime Minister: With respect, I should like to repeat what I said yesterday, that I do not wish to go into the details of these matters when negotiations are taking place. The local authority employers are fully aware of the Government's attitude and position. So, I believe, are the unions. I hope that they will come to an early and swift agreement and put an end to what is now taking place.

Mr. John Ellis: Will my right hon. Friend continue to press on along the lines that he is suggesting, as it is obvious from the contributions from Conservative Members, and especially those of the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition, that while the nation is looking for a resolution of these difficult problems—[Interruption.] One of the problems that faces us as an interdependent society is that some people are getting 100 times the amount that other people, who are very necessary to our economy, are getting. Is it not clear that the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition has nothing to to contribute except "My God, we'll confront them"?

The Prime Minister: I note my hon. Friend's view. I have no doubt that a degree of patience on this matter is vital if we are to secure the absence of confrontation that I believe is best in the interests of this country. That is what we are working for. The TUC and the Government, and now the CBI, are ready to begin discussions on this basis, and that is the best way forward.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Brotherton: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth). [HON. MEMBERS: "Wrong answer!"]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: But nearly all these questions are the same, anyway. [Interruption.] And so is this answer.
This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

Mr. Brotherton: Despite the Prime Minister's lamentable lack of attention to detail, will he find time today to have a word with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science? Will he tell the right hon. Lady that her fine words about crossing picket lines, uttered in this House on Tuesday, would have rung far more true if she had not indulged in mob picketing outside the Grunwick factory last year? Furthermore, does not the Prime Minister agree that the double standards displayed by the right hon. Lady are typical of what has now become the common currency of his Administration?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that cheap abuse of that sort will appeal to anybody.

Mr. English: Has my hon. Friend at any time today discussed paragraph 27 of the joint statement issued yesterday, which talks about an economic assessment before Easter? May I take it that there will be one before this Easter?


Since the CBI and the Treasury have colossal economic and computational resources, and since, as far as I know, the TUC has no resources of that character, is my right hon. Friend taking steps to ensure that all parties will be equally well advised in these discussions?

The Prime Minister: The Chancellor knows how far he can rely on the computational resources that he has, and I hope that he does not rely on them too much. The TUC in the early months of every year produces an excellent and valuable review of the economic prospects. I hope that that will be fully taken into account. It is intended that there should be discussions before the current year beginning on 6 April next. The TUC will be as fully informed as anyone of the information that is available.

Sir Bernard Braine: Amid all his preoccupations today, has the Prime Minister found time to look at my letter of 1 February, drawing his attention to the continued failure of subordinate Ministers to grasp the serious peril facing my constituents, 8,000 of whom have effectively been told by the Health and Safety Executive that they are living in a danger area where the worst effects of a methane gas cloud explosion might be felt? Will he take command of the situation, knock some heads together, and get some action?

The Prime Minister: I read the hon. Member's letter. Such allegations and people's safety, whether or not they are his constituents, are of great importance, and I asked that there should be a full investigation and report. The Secretary of State for the Environment and other Ministers are so doing. It is a difficult problem, but the Government are reviewing the matter and will reach a conclusion. We shall have to consider whether we can totally safeguard the lives of the hon. Member's constituents in all circumstances. But I am well aware of the problem.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Lord President to state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 19 FEBRUARY—Supply [8th Allotted Day]—and TUESDAY 20 FEBRUARY—Debate on the 1st report from the Procedure Committee, Session 1977–78, House of Commons Paper No. 588, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. The 1st to 8th reports from the Sessional Procedure Committee in Session 1976–77 will also be relevant.

WEDNESDAY 21 FEBRUARY—Motions on the Northern Ireland orders on rates amendment and judgments enforcement.

Proceedings on the following seven Lords consolidation measures:

Customs and Excise Management Bill,
Customs and Excise Duties (General Reliefs) Bill,
Alcoholic Liquor Duties Bill,
Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Bill,
Matches and Mechanical Lighters Duties Bill,
Tobacco Products Duty Bill,
Excise Duties (Surcharge or Rebates) Bill.

Motion on EEC documents R/3185/78, R/3089/78, R/3090/78, R/3146/78, R/3093/78, R/3312/78 and 4102/79 on the Communities budget.

THURSDAY 22 FEBRUARY—Debate on the White Paper on "The Review of the Mental Health Act 1959", Cmnd. 7320.

FRIDAY 23 FEBRUARY—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.

Mrs. Thatcher: I should like to put three brief points to the Leader of the House. This is the third Thursday in succession that I have asked him for a statement of the effect on British interests of events in Iran. Will he please give an assurance that before the House rises next week we shall have a statement? It is important not only for defence contracts but for oil, trade and other interests.


We must have at least one statement, if not two.
Secondly, on the procedure debate on Monday and Tuesday, he will be aware that the Procedure Committee was particularly anxious that we should have two separate days, one for the general views to be taken and the second for decisions. He has decided—and I am sure that a sufficient number of hon. Members wish to speak to warrant that—to have two days for the views of the House on all the reports. Will lie agree that before the end of this Parliament we should have a day to decide the matters that the Procedure Committee has laid before us? It would be quite wrong if that were to be held over to another Parliament. Will he therefore give an undertaking that we shall have a day of decision?
Thirdly, I understand that the Select Committee on the public expenditure White Paper will report next week. Will he give an undertaking that we shall have a debate on that White Paper as soon as we return from the referendum recess? Will he also find it convenient next Thursday, if not today, to give an indication of the date of the Budget?

Mr. Foot: On the third matter, I cannot give an undertaking when there will be a debate on the expenditure report. I have indicated before, and the House agreed, that it is right for us to await the report of the Expenditure Committee before making such a decision. I cannot promise the right hon. Lady that I will give the date of the Budget in the next Business Statement. I shall certainly look at the representations that she has made.
On Iran, I shall take account of the right hon. Lady's representations and see whether a statement should be made. I think that there is a strong case for that happening next week.
On the Procedure Committee, in almost every business statement that I have made there have been representations to have this debate. We have made arrangements for a full debate, which is the right course. There have also been representations that we should at the same time take into account some of the Sessional Procedure Committee reports that are coming forward, and we have made arrangements for that. It would not be right, following the debates next week, for the House to pro-

ceed immediately to decisions on these matters. We must first take into account the general view that emerges from these debates.

Mrs. Thatcher: Before the end of this Parliament we must have another day to reach decisions on that report. Will the right hon. Gentleman give that undertaking?

Mr. Foot: I understood what the right hon. Lady said. In any case, we shall have the same Government after the next election and in the next Parliament, so we do not need to worry. We shall certainly debate these matters next week, and hon. Members can put their case. It would be best to decide these matters at the beginning of a new Session of a new Parliament. If hon. Members have a different view they can state it in the debate, although it is a perfectly proper matter for discussion. That is why we have allowed such good time for the debate.

Mr. David Steel: First, will the Leader of the House reconsider his last answer? Hon. Members in all parts of the House have spent much time working on the Committee on Procedure. It is not fair to have a two-day debate and not implement any of the recommendations. We should do so in this Session of Parliament, if not in the debate next week.
Secondly, will the business for next week include the moving of a writ for the by-election at Liverpool, Edge Hill? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are now on the new register? The Labour candidate was selected a long time ago. Given the problems in Liverpool and Merseyside at present, there is no excuse for leaving that constituency unrepresented.

Mr. Foot: On the last subject raised by the right hon. Gentleman, I have nothing to say. It is not customary that it should be a topic for debate in this manner. But I shall look at the question in the way that it has been raised.
I am ready to consider the representations that the right hon. Gentleman and others make on the first subject, but there is a contrary view that I shall seek to put if we have the discussion. The best way for the House to proceed is to decide such questions at the beginning of a new Parliament. There will be ample opportunity to discuss this question among


others on Monday and Tuesday of next week.

Mr. Michael Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend find time to debate early-day motion 187 about violence on television, which has been signed by about 120 hon. Members in all parts of the House?

[That this House is strongly of the opinion that films which are categorised as "X" films at cinemas and which it is prohibited to show to persons under the age of 18 years should not be shown on television.]

Mr. Foot: I recognise the great number of hon. Members who have signed the motion put down in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck). I cannot promise an immediate day, but I shall take these representations into account.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: Will the Leader of the House find time to debate early-day motion No. 223, on Mr. Justice Ackner—
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that she will be pleased to remove the Honourable Sir Desmond Ackner from the office which he holds as Justice of the High Court.]
—and the amendment thereto in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself?
[Line 1, leave out from 'That' to end and add 'this House recognises in Mr. Justice Ackner the qualities of fairness, clarity, patience and courtesy which make him eminently fitted for high judicial office; deprecates ill-considered criticism of him, whether deriving from ignorance or political partisanship; and hopes that he will for many years continue to serve successfully the cause of British justice.']
Is it not eminently undesirable that a motion, however lacking in authority and verisimilitude, reflecting on one of Her Majesty's judges and calling for his removal should stand unresolved on the Order Paper?

Mr. Foot: I understand the point the right hon. and learned Member makes. There are precedents for such motions remaining on the Order Paper for some time. I would hope that the motion would be withdrawn, but I cannot give a promise of an early debate.

Mrs. Bain: In view of the fact that the people of Scotland and Wales will go to the polls a fortnight today to register their views on the devolution proposals, will the Leader of the House tell us whether there will be a statement next week indicating the Government's intentions about the allowance to be made against the dead, double registered and removed voters on the electoral register in these countries? It has been estimated that there is a 300,000-vote disadvantage for the "Yes" campaign before it even starts.

Mr. Foot: Certainly, some indication must be given to the House next week about this matter. We have not yet decided what form that indication will take. I fully appreciate what the hon. Member and others have said. A statement must be made in some form before the referendum day.

Mr. Anderson: Are the Government geared to an immediate parliamentary response to the decision of the electorate in Wales and Scotland on 1 March, whatever the result? If, as is likely in Wales on the evidence of recent polls, the decision is a rejection of the Government's proposals, have the Government any contingency plans such as an enhancement of the role of the Welsh Grand Committee or a new role for the top tier in directly elected local government authorities which might go some way to filling the resultant gap?

Mr. Foot: I have already told the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) that there must be some indication on the matters that she raised and this also covers the matters raised by my hon. Friend. As to any view of the Government on the results of the referendum, we should wait and see, but by far the best way to ensure that we get a decent reform of local government in the future is to elect a Welsh Assembly and let that Assembly recommend ways in which that local government could be properly overhauled.

Mr. John H. Osborn: Will the Leader of the House invite the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a statement on the failure of local authorities throughout the country, including South Yorkshire and Sheffield, in particular—I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister


now has the freedom of the city of Sheffield—to clear snow, carry out salting and gritting of roads and maintain domestic industrial and commercial life because of an industrial dispute which makes a mockery of the concordat?

Mr. Foot: I do not accept most of the comments that the hon. Member made. We shall see whether statements should be made on that and many kindred subjects next week.

Mr. Michael McGuire: Is my right hon. Friend aware that tomorrow I have a small Private Member's Bill going through? Will he have a talk with his colleagues to ensure that no voice on this side of the House is instructed to shout "Object"? My right hon. Friend will remember that when I first raised this matter with him—the Bill is to help old workmen's compensation cases—he was favourably disposed towards it. Is he aware that if the Bill were blocked this would be misunderstood by many people who are Labour supporters?

Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend has made his representations even more effectively than I could.

Mr. Goodhart: If the Government accept the advice of their road safety advisers, why are they not bringing forward next week the Bill for making compulsory the wearing of seat belts? If the Government do not accept the advice of their advisers, why are they bringing forward the Bill at all?

Mr. Foot: The Government are committed to bringing forward the Bill but, as the hon. Member may have noticed, it is not a measure that commands universal approval in the House.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Now that the House of Lords has run away from its responsibilities and rejected the motion to set up a committee of inquiry following the Bingham report, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, either with or without the agreement of the Opposition, a Committee of this House will be set up to go into the details? Also, will he ask the Secretary of State to make a statement next week on reports that the Government have authorised BP to sell North Sea oil to South Africa? If

that is so, there will be great anger in this House and in the country.

Mr. Foot: I shall look at the second matter. I do not think that my hon. Friend should accept reports appearing in peculiar quarters on that or on any other subject. On the first matter, I indicated last week and earlier this week that a most serious step had been taken by another place on this matter. Obviously the Government must consider that and will come forward in due time with proposals for dealing with the situation which arises.

Sir David Renton: On the matter of procedure, while it is understandable that the Leader of the House should want a general debate first, will he bear in mind that the report of the Select Committee was one on which all party representatives were unanimous on the main recommendations? Would it not clear the air a great deal if he found a reasonably early opportunity to enable the House to state its own views by having substantive motions on which we can vote? Is he aware that having the debate on the Adjournment on Tuesday, which is Government time, prevents that? Will he therefore respond to the reasonable request of the Leader of the Opposition and at least keep an open mind about having a day of decision within the reasonably near future?

Mr. Foot: I am prepared to keep an open mind on this subject. Had the Government made proposals for seeking to settle these matters without even listening to the debate in the House, we would have been legitimately criticised from an opposite direction. Select Committees of this House, although very important, are not as important as the House. The House is much more important, and the House must have the right to give its views generally. Of course the House will decide on these matters, but it has the right to give its views. Those Members who are not members of the Procedure Committee have just as much right as those who are to give their views. Had the Government come forward with proposals before listening to the House as a whole, we would be much more open to censure.

Mr. Jay: On procedure, does my right hon. Friend adhere to his previous view


that we need a special and separate debate on the treatment of EEC legislation? This is long overdue.

Mr. Foot: All those matters are covered in the procedure report. I have no doubt that if my right hon. Friend participates in that debate he will refer to those matters. There are many outstanding matters to be settled. Since the procedure report dealt with some of those matters, it was not for the Government to decide that we should separate the debates.

Mr. Luce: Is the Leader of the House aware that in answer to a written question of mine this week the Minister for Overseas Development announced that £7½ million of taxpayers' money would be used out of the aid budget to assist Vietnam to buy cargo ships and gas turbines? Since Vietnam is pursuing policies that are totally against Britain's interests, how can this possibly be the right thing to do? Will he ask the Minister for Overseas Development to make a statement to the House?

Mr. Foot: I do not think that that arises on the business for next week. The hon. Member should put down a question in the normal manner.

Mr. Spriggs: In view of the high rate of unemployment in the North-West, will my right hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Cabinet consider the setting up of a North-West agency, similar to those set up in Wales and Scotland?

Mr. Foot: I know that that is one of the propositions on this matter that have been put forward by some of my hon. Friends. I fully acknowledge the seriousness of the unemployment problem in the North-West. However, the National Enterprise Board covers the whole of England and it has some separate developments that have been devised to assist in the regions. I do not think that it could be done by setting up a new kind of agency, but that does not mean to say that we must not do everything to encourage the NEB to assist in the North-West as much as it possibly can.

Mr. Rathbone: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all hon. Members feel the need, as he does, to debate things of import in the House as a whole? Will he therefore indicate when it will be pos-

sible for the Government to provide time to debate the new concordat between the Government and the TUC? is he aware that many people have reservations that that concordat will not achieve what the Prime Minister says it will achieve in stopping secondary picketing, secondary blacking and the operation of closed shops?

Mr. Foot: I think that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what was in the document. Perhaps he has been led astray by his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. But, of course, all the matters in that document are obviously very proper matters for debate in the House. When the House reassembles on 5 March I have no doubt that that will be one of the topics that the House will with to debate.

Mr. Faulds: When will the House be given an opportunity to give a general and very warm welcome to the very nearly excellent White Paper on the national land fund?

Mr. Foot: That is the kind of thing that I like to hear.

Mr. Faulds: When?

Mr. Tebbit: Will the Leader of the House undertake to arrange as soon as possible a statement from the Secretary of State for Industry on his return from China? Does the Leader of the House agree that it would surely be very interesting to hear whether what the Prime Minister would no doubt call the other half or the Left half of the Cabinet's outright opposition to the sale of Harriers to China has indeed affected the prospects of gaining that order?

Mr. Foot: My right hon. Friend has not gone yet, so it would be very peculiar to make arrangements for him to make a statement when he returns. However, we shall take account of the hon. Gentleman's representations and give him the same courtesy as we always extend.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be widespread support across the House for his resistance to the precipitate attempts to have the matters mentioned in the Procedure Committee report debated in the unseemly fashion suggested by certain Opposition Members?

Mr. Foot: It is getting better and better. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his assistance in the matter.

Mr. Wiggin: Is the Leader of the House aware that his excuse for not bringing forward the seat belts Bill—that the matter is controversial—is surely the weakest of all? The Government's delay in not bringing forward this legislation has already cost many hundreds of lives and much unnecessary injury. Will the right hon. Gentleman find time to have the matter resolved?

Mr. Foot: I did not say that the Government are not bringing forward the Bill because it is controversial. I merely remarked on the fact that there was not unanimous support for the Bill. That was a statement of fact. The Government are committed to bringing in the Bill. I understand that as well as anyone else.

Mr. Loyden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the point that he made in regard to the NEB is the very question that concerns many of us in the North-West? Is he aware that, in terms of decision making, the NEB was responsible for the closure of the Speke No. 2 plant and was responsible for rejecting the approach made by myself and some of my hon. Friends on the question of Seel House Press, and that as far as we are concerned it has not contributed anything towards job creation in Merseyside or that part of the North-West? It is time that this House debated the NEB's role and its role in job creation in areas of high unemployment.

Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct in saying that the operation of the NEB is a perpetually proper topic for debate in this House. A Bill is going through the House now which offers opportunities for discussion on those matters. I have no doubt that, when we return after the short referendum campaign, at a very early date there will be a further opportunity for discussing the operations of the NEB, and my hon. Friend, like others, will be able to join in those debates.

Mr. Michael Morris: Will the Lord President arrange for a statement to be made next week on the allocation of broadcasting time for the Scottish referendum campaign? It seems to English Members that there has been a

change of principle here, which needs clarifying.

Mr. Foot: I do not think that there has been any change of principle. I am doubtful whether it is the right course to have a general debate upon the matter. All that has happened is that we are abiding by the normal arrangements for party political broadcasts.

Mr. English: Does my very conservative right hon. Friend realise that he made one statement earlier which I think would be challenged on both sides of the House? He said that the best time to decide changes in procedure was in a new Parliament, when—he did not say this—in other words, many hon. Members of the House are totally inexperienced about its procedure.
I am not concerned with the question whether we have decisions made on Monday or Tuesday—like my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr)—but I think that they should be made shortly after we have had the general discussion that my right hon. Friend wants. As the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party and others have said, we should then have an opportunity to make a decision. Could we not make a decision at least on some small points, such as permitting Sub-Committees to publish their proceedings? I do not see any great political objection to that.

Mr. Foot: There might be some of those lesser matters which, I agree, could easily be dealt with in that manner. On the other hand, there might be some dispute between hon. Members as to which were the major matters and which were the lesser matters.
Moreover, it is the case, of course, as my hon. Friend argues, that we should take into account the views of hon. Members who have been Members of this House for some time. On the other hand, the decisions made on the matter will affect the people who are Members of the next Parliament. Many of us will be here in much the same position as we are now. The way in which these provisions will operate will affect the lives of the Members of that future Parliament, and I should have thought that those who will be here for the next Parliament have as


much right to determine these questions as those who are Members of this older Parliament.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call four hon. Members who have been rising to their feet continually.

Mr. Bendall: Is the Leader of the House aware of the concern that the reorganisation of the police force in the London area is causing? The closure of police stations at night is causing great concern. Will the right hon. Gentleman allow time for this matter to be debated? It is an important issue, affecting the metropolis.

Mr. Foot: I cannot promise a debate next week. Hon. Members know that individual Back Benchers have plenty of opportunities to raise matters in the House.

Mr. Stokes: Will the Lord President allow time for this House to debate the state of national morale, which is probably lower now than at any time in our long and glorious history?

Mr. Foot: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's gloomy conclusions. Certainly I hope that we shall have many future debates in the House which will enable him to change that approach.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion no. 246, entitled "Massacre in Rhodesia", which stands in my name and the names of a substantial number of my hon. Friends?
[That this House deplores the barbaric destruction of a second civilian airliner at Kariba; expresses its profound sympathy to all those who have been bereaved by this latest example of the unmitigated savagery of so-called liberation forces in Rhodesia; calls upon Her Majesty's Government to express its total condemnation of such action in terms far less equivocal than those used by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on the last occasion a Rhodesian airliner was shot down; asks

the Secretary of State for Defence for immediate and convincing proof that no British missiles have been used on this occasion; and warns the leaders and representatives of the organisation known as ZIPRA, including Joshua Nkomo, that if they set foot in the United Kingdom they are likely to face prosecution on a charge of murder.]
Although we do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to share it, may I ask whether he is aware of the great intensity of feeling and the concern which underlies it? May we have an early opportunity of debating what we feel to be the destabilising effects of the Anglo-American policy towards the Patriotic Front?

Mr. Foot: The matter has been debated on many past occasions. I have no doubt that it will have to be debated on a number of future occasions. I certainly would not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said about the alleged destabilising effects of the Anglo-American proposals. Indeed, I think that the adoption of those proposals still offers the best way forward for trying to overcome some of the difficulties. I am sorry to say that the destabilisation in Rhodesia originates from those who backed the original rebellion by Smith and his friends.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the Lord President arrange for the Minister of Agriculture to come to the House to make a statement on the recently published White Paper "Farming and the Nation" —Cmnd 7456? The farming industry is one of the most important industries in this country. I believe that the Government owe it to the House to allow time for a debate on this vital issue. This is a sequel to "Food from Our Own Resources", which was published some years ago by the present Government. Will time be found for a debate in the very near future?

Mr. Foot: Time will be found, but it will not be found next week. The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that this is a proper subject for debate in the House. We have a very good White Paper on agriculture and an even better Minister of Agriculture. We shall be happy to bring both together in an early debate to suit the hon. Gentleman.

BILLS PRESENTED

LEASEHOLD REFORM

Mr. Secretary Shore, supported by Mr. Secretary Morris, Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. Reginald Freeson, and Mr. Ernest Armstrong, presented a Bill to provide further protection, for a tenant in possession claiming to acquire the freehold under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, against artificial inflation of the price he has to pay: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 87].

CONSENTS TO PROSECUTIONS

Mr. Attorney-General, supported by Mr. Secretary Rees, Mr. Solicitor-General, and Mr. Arthur Davidson, presented a Bill to transfer, or facilitate the transfer of, certain functions relating to prosecutions and consents to prosecutions; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 88].

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the questions on the two motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,

That the National Health Service (Preservation of Boards of Governors) Order 1979 (S.I., 1979, No. 51) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.

That the Grants for Guarantees of Bank Loans (Extension of Period) Order 1979 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Foot.]

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC HEALTH LABORATORY SERVICE BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

4.1 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. David Ennals): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The immediate object of the Public Health Laboratory Service Bill is to allow me to extend the scope of the Public Health Laboratory Service. This is in order that the Public Health Laboratory Service Board may take over the management of the Microbiological Research Establishment at Porton. I indicated that such legislation would be needed in my reply to the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) on 8 March last year.
The Microbiological Research Establishment has nearly 40 years of history. It originated in 1940 when a small group of scientists was assembled to study the threat of biological warfare. By the end of the war a Microbiological Research Department had come into being and was placed under the Ministry of Supply, as it then was. In 1947 plans were prepared for a separate establishment for biological research for defence purposes, and in 1948 work began on a building at Porton on Ministry of Defence property about a mile from the Chemical Defence Establishment. Within a few years the establishment had justified the confidence placed in it by proving that some disease-producing microbes can live for long periods in the air in weather conditions typical of those found at night in Britain. I am not certain whether they could have survived last night, but that is another matter. It also showed that quantities of bacteria could be released to blanket large areas of the British Isles within a few hours. The MRE had quickly established itself as an insurance against biological warfare.
Defence requirements change, however, and the Government decided that the services provided for the Ministry of Defence by MRE could be provided instead by a small team to be transferred to the Chemical Defence Establishment. We


had to consider what the future of MRE should be. Fortunately, its work was not confined to defence. In 1957, for example, it was called on to help increase the country's stock of vaccine to limit the effects of the Asian 'flu epidemic. In 1967 its staff identified the cause of a new and deadly disease, the Marburg or vervet monkey disease. They isolated the virus and established a means of diagnosis.
In recent years MRE has been involved with research for industrial concerns. Its more striking projects have included the extraction of uranium by microbial action and the destruction by micro-organisms of toxic industrial waste.
I visited MRE recently and was most impressed by what I saw. I was particularly interested to learn something of the civil-funded work being carried on which will continue under PHLS Board management. I was able to visit several of the laboratories where research and development are being conducted on a variety of products in the health field. These include therapeutic enzymes, such as asparaginase for the treatment of certain forms of leukaemia, and reagents of various kinds for use in the diagnosis of disease.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: In the research and development of these marvellous things which will help the National Health Service, will the patent rights rest with the Crown? What will happen subsequent to the research? Will there be any profit to the Crown as a result of the manufacture of vaccines?

Mr. Ennals: A certain amount of patent work is done there. Work is already being done on a commercial basis. It is the hope of some of those working at Porton and of the Board that they will be able to develop the trading element by being able to take on more contracts. However, I do not think that its operations could ever be totally dependent upon work for which payment is made.
I also visited the unit where work is being carried on in the production of vaccines. I do not think I need stress the importance of such work for the present and the future. I also saw something of the work that is going on in the field of genetic engineering, under conditions of maximum safety, and here,

as throughout the establishment, I was struck by the great enthusiasm of the staff for their work. This is an enthusiasm which I and, I am confident, the PHLS Board wish to preserve and foster. There is a very fine team of people at work at Porton.
Clearly we needed to consider most carefully what the future of an establishment of this kind should be. Studies were carried out by the Central Policy Review Staff, a committee of the Medical Research Council, and an official group which examined possible management arrangements. At the end of all this, our conclusion was that MRE should continue as a civil establishment with a reduced scale of activity and that it could most appropriately be managed by the Public Health Laboratory Service Board. I am grateful to the Board for agreeing to take on this responsibility from 1 April 1979.
I understand that the Institution of Professional Civil Servants is asking for a fresh review of the future of MRE. I do not believe this would add anything to the studies that have already been undertaken. Moreover, I do not believe that it would be in the interests of the staff themselves to prolong uncertainty about the future of the establishment. It also suggested that the establishment should have a much wider role than that envisaged under the PHLS. I do not think that is very realistic. The amount of work the establishment can undertake must be limited by the resources we can afford to put into it. Also, it needs a coherent core programme of work, and this will best be provided by the programme worked out, in conjunction with the staff, by the PHLS Board. There is no doubt that the staff have been intensely involved in preparing the programme of work in which most of them will be involved.
The establishment's work will be given primarily a health and preventive aspect, and the Board proposes that it should become known as the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research. The Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research will be a wholly civil establishment. Defence needs will be catered for by the Chemical Defence Establishment on a nearby site, which will remain part of the Ministry of Defence. Some contract


work for MOD may be undertaken at the centre, but it will not be classified work. Detailed work programmes for the new centre are being prepared, and besides continuing the health-oriented civil work previously carried out under the Ministry of Defence, the Board is planning some expansion in areas of current public health interest.
One of these areas is that of laboratory safety. I do not want to spend too long over the general question of laboratory safety. I made a comprehensive statement to the House following the Shooter Inquiry into the smallpox case at Birmingham on 24 January, and the subject of laboratory safety was raised in an Adjournment debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) on 1 February.
On the first occasion, I referred to the recent inspection of the MRE on behalf of the Health and Safety Executive, when it was found to have very high standards of safety. I am confident that these standards will be maintained, particularly as the staff of the new establishment will be drawn almost entirely from the present one.
I cannot agree with suggestions which have been made that the transfer of MRE to the PHLS Board will result in a reduction of safety standards. In the light of recent attention to matters of laboratory safety, the Board is currently carrying out a survey of its own laboratories and is drawing up plans for any improvements which may be shown to be necessary. The Board shares my wish to secure standards which are at once fully adequate and fully realistic.
The new centre will play an active part in promoting laboratory safety. The intention of the PHLS Board, which I warmly welcome, is to set up a reference laboratory dealing with laboratory safety. The functions of this section will include, first, the monitoring of the safety procedures and equipment in all the laboratories of the centre, and liaison with the occupational health service for the staff. The laboratory will also devise methods of evaluating the safety of procedures and equipment, and provide a reference service to which new equipment can be submitted for microbiological safety testing. The staff will also be available to provide advice and training to other laboratories in the PHLS, the

NHS, the Armed Forces and elsewhere, and will be expected to visit other laboratories in this connection.
I turn now to the particular provisions of the Bill, with which I can deal briefly. The PHLS Board's present responsibilities are limited, under the National Health Service Act 1977, to the provision of a microbiological service for the control of infectious disease. It is desirable that the work of the new centre, if it is fully to make use of the facilities that it possesses and of the high level of ability and skill of staff, should be able to extend to activities which are not strictly microbiological but for which the establishment provides an appropriate environment. The extraction of certain therapeutic and diagnostic agents, for example, will involve work of a non-microbiological nature, although it will be work which can appropriately be carried on in an environment suitable for microbiological work.
Clause 1 of the Bill therefore enables me to extend the scope of the Public Health Laboratory Service to include other activities in addition to the already authorised microbiological service. It also introduces a correspondingly wider provision than that contained in the National Health Service Act 1977 for charges to be made for services and materials provided as part of the service.
Clause 2 of the Bill is simply a contingency measure. The NHS Act permits members of the PHLS Board to be compensated for the loss of remunerative time and to receive travelling and other allowances. The present Bill would extend the range of possible payments to members and would transfer from the Board to me the power to determine them with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service. I have no plans at present to use this power, but it seems wise to take the opportunity of bringing legislation relating to the PHLS Board into line with that relating to similar bodies like the National Radiological Protection Board.
The Institution of Professional Civil Servants has said that it is concerned about the terms of transfer being offered to staff. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State had some discussion about this with the staff at MRE only yesterday. My understanding is that many of the worries of the IPCS concern matters that are primarily for my right


hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I ought also to stress that transfer terms are still under negotiation between the unions representing MRE staff and a committee representing the Ministry of Defence, my Department and the Public Health Laboratory Service Board. Nevertheless, if the staff wish it, I or my hon. Friend will be pleased to meet them and to learn at first hand their views on any matters which are our particular concern.
I have great confidence that by transferring the management of MRE to the Public Health Laboratory Service Board we are ensuring its future, the future of its work in the most important and valuable sphere of health and prevention, and the opportunity for its staff to continue to contribute their particular skills in meeting the current requirements of the nation. It is in that spirit that I move the Second Reading of the Bill.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his brief description of the Bill and for giving the House some of the background to the establishment of the Microbiological Research Establishment at Porton. Unlike himself and the Under-Secretary, I have not had the privilege of visiting Porton. But, in preparation for this debate, I have gone to some trouble to try to find out what it has been doing. I have read a good deal. I have met some of the people involved and spoken to others on the telephone.
I should like to endorse what the right hon. Gentleman says. What emerges is the universally high reputation which Porton and the work done there enjoys in scientific circles. The skill of the staff and the standards of safety which they have set, and, in some cases, have developed, stand comparison with any in the world. The consistency of the products they produce, the enzymes and other biological products which they make available to research laboratories throughout the country and, I suspect, overseas is extremely good. The integrity of their safety standards in handling the extremely dangerous pathogens with which they have to deal is something of which we and they can be proud. If ever the phrase "a centre of excellence" deserved to be applied, it should be applied to the

scientists and the establishment at Porton. It is for that reason that the future of this establishment is of great importance. It is worthy of some time for debate in this House.
There are three distinct functions that one might expect a civilian establishment of this kind to fulfil. In the first place, Porton is essential, as one of the United Kingdom research centres in support of the National Health Service and the whole field of public health, for dealing with the most dangerous pathogens that threaten the life of man. This is especially true in the matter of diagnosis. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Marburg disease, isolated by Porton, which was able to advise doctors.
The establishment has developed a unique expertise in containment. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to have a copy of the Shooter report in confidence. Happily, my name does not end with an "s", and I have respected that confidence. Anyone who has read that report—

Mr. Doug Hoyle: I thought we had cleared up this matter once and for all. I speak as president of ASTMS. It was made clear, and my right hon. Friend was good enough to say this in the House, that when the general secretary of ASTMS and myself discussed this matter with him, we made clear that we could not be bound by any secrecy. Indeed, we made clear that we would publish the report. It was not sent to us under any cloak of secrecy. We said that if that was to be the case we did not want to have it. My right hon. Friend made that clear when he spoke.

Mr. Jenkin: I have on another occasion —I will not be led further into this matter—chided the right hon. Gentleman because, if that was said to him, he was singularly unwise to place any faith in Mr. Clive Jenkins. He had made clear what he was going to do, and he did it. The fact is that the covering letter sent to Mr. Clive Jenkins made it abundantly clear that the copy was for his own use and information. That letter has been published in Hansard in response to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young).
It shows how one falls into traps. If Mr. Clive Jenkins was not prepared to


accept the report on the basis of the letter under cover of which it came, he should have sent it back unread. It was a gross breach of confidence that he should have published it. It will be a long time before Ministers of whatever Government are prepared to trust him again.

Mr. Hoyle: Absolute rubbish.

Mr. Jenkin: I will have more to say about the Shooter report in a moment. Porton has an immensely important role in the training of people in biological and laboratory safety.
Its second role is the supply of microorganisms to laboratories and industry all over the country. Its third role—one with which I want to deal in some detail—is as a centre for what is sometimes called economic microbiology, or bio-technology, namely, work in support of the burgeoning science of the industrial application of microbiological techniques. I shall return to those three roles shortly.
I deal now with where we are today and how we have got here. In March 1976 the defence White Paper foreshadowed the civilianisation of Porton Down, which had an establishment of nearly 400, of which perhaps 25—say 10 scientists and 15 supporting staff—would be transferred to the chemical defence experimental establishment down the road.
Since then, the rest of the staff has been left in limbo. There have been two secret reports—and I use the word "secret" advisedly—by the Central Policy Review Staff and the Medical Research Council. For reasons that I am unable to discover, neither has been published, though I understand that parts of the MRC report were made available in confidence to the staff at Porton Down. Certainly neither report was made available to hon. Members and I have not seen either of them.
In December 1976, the Institute of Biology, which obviously has an important role in this matter, called for a thorough assessment of the role of the MRE, not only in regard to the hazardous pathogens for which it is principally famous, but also in the important area of economic and industrial microbiology. The Institute gave its view against the back-

ground of the history of microbiology in this country.
The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research closed the microbiological section of the Chemical Research Laboratory at Teddington in, I think, 1958. That laboratory was founded after the war as a recognition of the backwardness of the United Kingdom in economic and industrial microbiology.
It is a famous historical fact that although Sir Alexander Fleming, whose name is given to the Secretary of State's office building, discovered penicillin in the 1930s, its commercial development and the processes needed to produce it in quantity were carried out in the United States and the licences had to be bought by Britain during the war to enable that work to be done at Speke.
There was good reason for the existence of the Teddington laboratory and it is a matter for regret that it was closed. An article in Science Journal in 1969 said:
Its collection of bacteria was banished to Aberdeen and its staff scattered, a move, the consequences of which are still being felt … Microbiological research, apart from the MRE, is now being carried out at universities in shreds and patches and only when it turns out to be necessary in cracking some technological nut not basically concerned with it, for example, in water pollution.
The MRE remained cloaked in mystery because its primary work was for defence purposes in the area of biological warfare. However, it is no secret that the establishment developed techniques for handling very virulent and dangerous organisms and that these techniques have considerable relevance and importance not only in strategic terms but in health care.
The establishment also developed the capacity to manufacture and supply virus vaccines in large quantities. The Secretary of State mentioned the Asian 'flu episode; I am told that the establishment supplied 600,000 doses of vaccine in four months. That was, by any standards, a remarkable achievement.
We were told in 1976 that the MRE was no longer needed for defence purposes and it was widely felt in scientific circles that, as a uniquely valuable resource, the establishment should not be dissipated as the Teddington facility had been dissipated 17 years earlier. Indeed,


some went further. An article in New Scientist in December 1976 said:
many senior microbiologists are extremely angry that Britain is falling behind almost every other developed country in mounting major programmes of research in biotechnology. West Germany, for example, recently authorised such a project, funded to the tune of at least £20 million annually, while Japan has established several research institutes devoted to fermentation research.
There was not only therefore the need to preserve the expertise, but there was also a growing recognition in scientific circles that if we were to achieve and retain pre-eminence in that work we needed a strong research base.
It took two years from the Ministry of Defence's announcement for the Government to announce their proposals for the future of Porton Down. They were two years of doubt, uncertainty, falling morale and many staff resignations, including those of some of the ablest people at the establishment.
In December 1977, another New Scientist article referred to "inordinate delays" in resolving the establishment's future. It was not until 21 February last year that a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Hamilton), in whose constituency Porton Down is situated, elicited from the Government the first indication of what was proposed. My hon. Friend was told:
The Government have decided therefore to retain MRE as a civil establishment subject to satisfactory administrative arrangements being made.… The Board of PHLS is considering the matter, entirely without commitment. A further announcement will be made in the near future.—[Official Report, 21 February 1978; Vol. 944, c. 609.]
I have to hand it to the Government. They moved very fast after that. It was only a week later that the Secretary of State, in answer to a question from his hon. Friend for Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt), said:
I am glad to say the Board of the Public Health Laboratory Service has now accepted my invitation to assume the management responsibility".
The right hon. Gentleman said that the MRE would be
an integral part of the Public Health Laboratory Service."—[Official Report, 28 February 1978; Vol. 949, c. 204.]
We began to get an indication of what the Government had in mind for the establishment. I tabled two questions

about when we could expect legislation and was told that it would be brought forward
as soon as conveniently possible.
Here we are a year later. I wonder what would have been inconvenient. I also asked about the purposes of the MRE under the new management. The Secretary of State gave me a long reply but did not answer my question. He said:
The Government broadly accept its proposals
—that is, the MRC's proposals—
for a reduced scale of activity. Detailed programmes are to be the subject of study by the Ministry of Defence, which retains responsibility for the Microbiological Research Establishment for the time being, the Public Health Laboratory Service Board, which it is intended will assume management responsibility from 1 April 1979 and my Department … certain manufacturing and other activities, particularly those connected with the microbiological products, at present carried out at Porton, could not be said to relate to the administration of the public health laboratory service, and additional powers are therefore required."—[Official Report, 8 March 1978; Vol. 945, c. 704.]
Throughout that reply, there was no indication of what was to be the main purpose and function of the MRE, and I suspect that, despite the reports they had had, the Government were not too clear themselves.
Now we have the necessary legislation presented to us a year after that reply. I believe that it is right to criticise the Government on two counts. There was an inordinately long delay between the Ministry of Defence announcement in 1976 and the presentation of the Bill. That delay has caused much anxiety to hundreds of staff at Porton Down and has not been a very happy chapter.
The Government are also open to criticism for not publishing the two reports on which their decision and therefore, indirectly, the Bill were based. Although Porton Down has had a cloak of secrecy over it because of its strategic role, it would have been right to bring into the open the question of its civilianisation.
I cannot see any reason why those reports, or at any rate some parts of them, could not have been published and made available to the House and the public. There is wide interest in this in scientific circles. There is a desire for


involvement by industry; and in the last two or three years there has been a rapid growth of interest and concern about developing techniques in microbiology, especially genetic engineering, or genetic manipulation as it is sometimes called. I believe these reports should have been published.
What does the future hold for Porton? I come back to the three main functions which I mentioned at the outset of my speech. I understand that the establishment is to be renamed the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research—CAMR—but of course as an integral part of the Public Health Laboratory Service.
Dealing first with its work in the field of dangerous pathogens, it is impossible to discuss this part of the work without reference to the Shooter report, and we have already touched upon that. I have read it because I was sent a copy in confidence; and of course we have had the statement to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred on 24 January. We are, however, subject to rules about sub judice. There is a prosecution pending. There is a case coming shortly before the Divisional Court as to whether or not the irresponsible publication of the report has so prejudiced the prosecution that it cannot go ahead. Nevertheless, I feel that we owe a duty to the sub judice rule and therefore I will not discuss the Shooter report in detail.
It is no secret, however, and I do not think that I am breaking any rule of the House in any way if I say that the report disclosed major flaws in the system specifically designed to ensure the safety of laboratories, in the monitoring and checking systems and particularly in laboratories dealing with the most serious viruses, category A pathogens. The report has reinforced the need for eternal vigilance, for the highest standards of care, and for tight and effective monitoring and, moreover, monitoring by people fully qualified to pronounce upon the matters which they are being asked to monitor. The Secretary of State said there were to be new regulations. I do not know whether the Under-Secretary of State will be able to tell us anything about those. On 24 January I urged that we should have the details as soon as possible.
The CAMR, as we must now call it, is now a national centre for developing expertise in this field. To quote an article from New Scientist of 9 December 1976,
Porton possesses containment facilities unique to Britain and indeed Europe of the sort that are essential for investigating known and suspect natural pathogens such as Marburg and Lassa fever viruses
In its own brochure which I read with great interest there was reference to the work that is being done, interestingly enough not only on diseases which are dangerous to people in this country but in the very important developing field of tropical diseases in developing countries which cannot themselves begin to afford the kind of research necessary to conquer those diseases.
As part of this, therefore, Porton has an enormously important role in the training of laboratory staff and the training of safety officers. Interestingly, this is one of the functions which the Institute of Biology saw right at the beginning fell into this field. I quote from a statement made by the institute towards the end of 1977:
MRE could serve a most useful role in training safety officers, in acting as a centre of advice on safety matters. This could involve (a) the training of safety officers (b) the training of senior scientific staff in the handling of dangerous pathogens, and so on.
I was grateful to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that that is firmly within its remit because it seems to me most important. Indeed, everything that was said in the Shooter report indicates the necessity for increasing the expertise of those who are to undertake this safety task. If it is to be decided that the Dangerous Pathogens Advisory Group membership is to be widened, I have no doubt whatever that those who are to be appointed to it should have the advantage of at any rate being exposed—and I do not use that word in its medical or scientific sense—to the expertise which Porton has to offer. That is important, and there is no dispute that CAMR has a real role in this training.
It is ironic, in passing, that just at the point at which it is to come under the aegis of the Public Health Laboratory Service Board, the PHLS itself has had to close one of its laboratories in the wake of the Shooter report because apparently it was failing to meet even the


existing standards of health and safety. I am bound to say I have some sympathy with a comment in a letter from a member of the staff at Porton Down that the takeover by the PHLS is a fine example of "setting a rabbit to guard the lettuces." Perhaps the right response is to say that Porton can teach Colindale a thing or two.

Mr. Hoyle: A lot.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) says "A lot", and that may well be.
I turn to the second role with which I can deal very briefly—the supply of micro-organisms. There is a range of fermentation plant at the works which provides a very valuable service to industry and laboratories in universities, and this is to continue. I am glad of that. It is not very easy to see how, in a management sense, it fits alongside the research work on dangerous pathogens and its third role, the economic microbiology. This is rather more of almost a production, or a development and production, role and the right hon. Gentleman might like to consider that there may come a time when perhaps that should be seen as a separate division with a trading fund; because it is really more analogous to some of the Government organisations that have been set up with trading funds, so that it can actually run on as near a commercial basis as possible. When I was at the Treasury, Parliament passed the trading fund legislation and since then dockyards and various other bodies have come under that regime. This fermentation and supply of products part of Porton Down might well be suitable for that kind of treatment.
On the third role, I come to the key point of what I want to say. The biggest and most exciting potential for Porton Down—certainly this is so in the eyes of its own staff—lies in the field of industrial or economic microbiology. Nearly 10 years ago scientists were beginning to foresee what was going to be the future of this new science. I have already quoted from an article from the Science Journal. I would like to enlarge on that with a quotation. It refers to Professor Posgate, who was then Professor of Microbiology at Sussex university.
Professor Postgate reels off a list of subjects of economic importance that are bound

up with microbial activity. Many of them involve the sulphur bacteria with which the Teddington group was doing so well in its heyday. They include, for example, the removal of pyrites from coal and upgrading it from non-coking to coking coal and also obtaining sulphur from effluents containing yeast. Both these are being worked upon, one at Cardiff, the other in Czechoslovakia.
The list is much wider, however, and includes corrosion of iron, steel and stone, release of oil deposits, spoilage of oil and canned foods, water pollution, fish farming, soil treatment and many more.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that microbes can be used to extract uranium from low-grade ore; there are uses in the decomposition of plastic rubbish, and so on. There is an enormous range of industrial techniques opening out in the microbiological field.
I believe that Porton should have a key role in that work. Part of this work relates to genetic manipulation. The Institute of Biology said on this matter:
Our members see an important future for MRE as a European centre for studies in genetic manipulation providing facilities for research work both by permanent staff and by visiting workers, and for technique training.
I have tried to obtain the view of industry. The representative of a major company which undertakes a great deal of its own research—I accept that much of this research has an element of commercial secrecy—put to me the views of his firm:
From the standpoint of practical usage, biological science and, more specifically, microbiology, is about to reach the stage of industrial application which has for so long characterised physics and chemistry. There is a lot to do and too few resources to do it. On balance therefore we probably need in the United Kingdom another centre such as Porton.
I was also told that
one could soon provide industrial justification for some applied microbiology of the sort which was best done at Porton—even in today's straitened circumstances … We would stress the need to attract able and senior people so that real research can be performed at Porton; the place must, under no circumstances, degenerate merely into a service centre.
That view has been echoed in much of the correspondence from the staff at Porton. It is in this area that the gravest doubts have been expressed about the Government's proposals. I have a letter from the general secretary of the Institute of Biology, Mr. D. G. B. Copp. Talking of biologists, he said:
Several are seriously concerned that the plans of the PHLS board make virtually no


allowance for the development of biotechnology and the seeking of contract work which would use some of the very special facilities available. There is, therefore, a real danger that those staff with considerable expertise in biotechnology will seek posts elsewhere, as some of them already have.
That letter was written to me only two days ago.
The Secretary of State for Social Services said that it was intended that work at CAMR should be health-oriented. The paper that I have seen from the PHLS board said that
It has been agreed that the work of the Centre should be 'health orientated', and detailed work programmes with this remit are being developed; much of the work will be a continuation of the 'health-orientated' civil work previously carried out under the Ministry of Defence, with expansion in areas of current public health interest.
I do not contest the importance of that aspect. But, set against the background of the history of the closure of the Teddington laboratory and the dismay thereby caused, the new surge of interest in industrial microbiology and the fact that by common consent we are on the thresh-hold of new advances in genetic manipulation, will Porton have a major role in this, too?
Work is taking place in this sphere all over the world. Some hon. Members may remember listening to two fascinating talks given to the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee in April 1977—one by Professor Pritchard, of the Department of Genetics at Leicester University, and one by Sir Gordon Wolstenholme, chairman of the Genetic Manipulation Advisory Group.
Professor Pritchard, in his address, said:
The work should go forward because the potential economic and social benefits are considerable. An example often quoted is the one which supposes we can put the gene which provides cells with the information they need to make the substance insulin into a bacterial cell. If the new cell could make insulin then this hormone could be made in a vat like beer instead of having to be extracted expensively from bulls' pancreases. In fact genetic engineering is part of a larger area of applied science which could be called biochemical technology and which will surely become increasingly, perhaps overwhelmingly important to us.
Sir Gordon Wolstenholme talked to us about the safety coverage given by the GMAG. I also had the privilege of hear-

ing a lecture by Sir John Kendrew, director general of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory at Heidelberg. Subsequently I wrote to him and he referred to the importance of having
a tool like the recombinant DNA technique without which it would be impossible to understand what is going on.
The more I talk to people in this field, the more I am impressed about how important it is for this country to remain in the forefront of this technology.
What is the future role for Porton in this work? Is the Public Health Laboratory Service the right aegis under which that kind of work could properly be done? Sir Robert Williams, a distinguished scientist, enjoys the full confidence of the staff at Porton. Indeed, the House will remember that the Williams report, of which Sir Robert was the author, was one of the forerunners in the setting up of the GMAG. I have been given the staffing figures for the laboratory for 1977, the most recent figures available. Of the staff of 2,064 a total of 172 are consultants, or are classified as "other medical"; there are two top-grade scientist microbiologists and 37 other scientist microbiologists. Therefore, the staff at the PHLS is overwhelmingly medically and health-oriented. That is an entirely different field from industrial microbiology, to which I have been referring.
One looks to see whom the organisation is trying to find as a new director of Porton. Although its advertisement refers to the fact that
applications from non-medical graduates with specially relevant interests or experience will be welcomed",
it is made quite clear that
preference will be given to candidates with a medical qualification".
I have tried in the last year or two to understand something of the roles and tensions that exist between scientists and doctors in the Health Service. I believe that there is a growing understanding and sympathy in relation to the roles of the two sections, but I can understand and sympathise with scientists at Porton who feel that, under the direction of a medically oriented leader with a medically oriented brief, this enormously important area of industrial microbiology will play a much reduced role, or may even be phased out altogether.
I wish to pay tribute to Dr. Robert Harris, who has managed to keep Porton going and who, despite all the difficulties, has sustained morale to a remarkable extent. Dr. Harris was described in the New Scientist as an "outstandingly well-qualified microbiologist". Nevertheless, I understand that he is not to be given the chance to apply for the job, and this, too, has caused dismay among the staff.
All this raises considerable doubts whether the Government are missing a great opportunity. Economic microbiology promises to become as important to the chemical industry as are silicon chips to the electronics industry. The Guardian, in one of its wilder headlines, referred to it as "Cloning in the gloaming", and talked about "prokaryotes" and "eukaryotes" —words that will pass into normal language. Just as 30 years ago the language of nuclear science was totally unfamiliar to the general public but has now become familiar, so will the language of this new science of microbiology become familiar to the public. I am fearful that, unless a determined effort is made, we shall find ourselves falling out of yet another technological race in the international competition with which we must live.
I wish now to turn to my last point—namely, the fears and the fate of the staff at Porton. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury has been in close touch with the staff and no doubt, if he has the opportunity in this debate, he will voice their fears with more eloquence than I can.
I, too, have met an official of the IPCS, and I have carefully read the brief that it provided. I do not think that I want to become involved in what is obviously developing as a competition for membership at Porton between IPCS and the union of which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne is president. Clearly, if the staff cease to be civil servants and become part of the PHLS, there will be a battle there, but that is for them to decide.
Nor is it right for me to start negotiating across the Floor of the House on the precise terms and conditions of staff transfer. That, as the right hon. Gentleman made clear, is a matter still open to negotiation. But there is great uncertainty and much unhappiness. Mr. Copp, of the Institute of Biology, writing to me a few days ago, said:

No member of the staff has yet had formal notice of termination of their employment by the Ministry of Defence although the hand over of responsibility is due to take place on 1st April. At a meeting of staff recently a representative of the PHLS said that those who have not been offered posts by the PHLS will not be allowed to enter the establishment after the 31st March. Presumably
—writes Mr. Copp—
this group of people will continue to be paid by the MoD while remaining at home.
That is a pretty unsatisfactory state to be in. The Government claim that there has been a great deal of consultation. The staff claim that consultation has been quite inadequate. I call to mind an amusing letter I saw in The Times about a year ago when Dr. Ashcroft, of Magdalen College, Oxford, in correspondence about the use of the word "consultation", had this to say:
may I offer the following lines from this year's Eynsham Primary School pantomime? They were spoken by the Evil Queen to her counsellors: Queen: 'Now I am going off to think of a Plan. When I return you can tell me what a good Plan it is, that is what we rulers call "Consultation".'
I think that the staff have the feeling that they have been addressed by the Evil Queen.
I do not argue that the long-term future of Porton should continue to remain in doubt. I do not argue that it should stay in the Civil Service. Nor do I argue that Potion should not come under the PHLS. That is the decision, and it should now be followed through. But whether it is part of the PHLS or otherwise, it is important for the scientific staff at Potion that their future should be seen by them to depend on Porton becoming not just an adjunct of the PHLS, with its almost exclusive health orientation, but on Porton being free to develop to the full its potential as a United Kingdom centre of excellence in the new era of industrial microbiology.
I am advised that this is a matter not so much of legislation as of policy. It has been suggested to me that the Government should be asked to withdraw the Bill and think again. I do not make that suggestion. There must be an end to uncertainty. In recommending my hon. Friends to give the Bill a Second Reading, I hope that when the Under-Secretary replies to the debate he will be able to give the House the firm assurances that are necessary to reassure


both the staff and industry that if Porton is needed to secure for Britain a place in the sun in the field of industrial microbiology, the necessary support will be forthcoming from the Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): The digital clocks have been behaving in a rather erratic manner. I think that it would be wise if they were turned off for the rest of the day.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: I did not think that when I rose the first thing that I should have to do, as president of the union, would be to deal once more—I thought that we had already dealt with it—with the unwarranted comments of the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) against the general secretary of my union, Mr. Give Jenkins.
Mr. Jenkins is a man who can usually defend himself and he would be more than a match for the right hon. Gentleman. But it is completely wrong for the right hon. Gentleman to continue to say that Clive Jenkins broke any confidences in publishing the Shooter report. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it is sub judice. When I saw my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, together with Clive Jenkins, we pointed out that we intended to publish. The answer that we got from the Secretary of State was that he also intended to publish but he could not because of legal advice.
As the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford should know—because it is his profession—one barrister's advice is only as good as another's, and our legal advice was that it was right to publish. Therefore, we "published and be damned". I think that Clive Jenkins did a service to the country in publishing the report and bringing to the attention of the public the disgraceful conditions that existed at Birmingham.
Because of the unusual rules of the House, I realise that I cannot to refer to the Shooter report, despite the fact that everybody knows about it. Therefore, that is all I intend to say on that. Of course, underlying what I shall say in relation to Porton is the question of dangerous pathogens and what can be done with them.
Before turning to that, I want to make a suggestion to my right hon. Friend the

Secretary of State. Perhaps notice will be taken of it in the winding-up speech. I think that there is a great chance here to make a breakthrough in industrial democracy in the Public Health Laboratory Service. We have a commitment—it was repeated in paragraph 18 of the joint statement between the TUC and the Government—

Mr. Ron Thomas: The concordat.

Mr. Hoyle: I am not so sure that that is the right word to use, according to certain newspapers. Let us just call it a "joint statement", so that we do not offend anyone. What that statement said was that there was a need for industrial democracy and a need for worker representation at all levels, including board level. Either we have got a Board, as it is composed at the moment, of academics and health administrators—worthy people, I have no doubt at all, who are excellent in their work—or we can seize the nettle and make it a 50–50 representation, with one half being drawn from staff and independent trade unions who also have an interest in these matters.
I have already declared my interest as president of ASTMS, but we could bring the staff in and it could only be of benefit. It would bring in wider experience than is now apparent on the Board, because it is rather narrow and limited. They would bring their working experience, their experience of safety and, indeed, their knowledge of what is actually happening in the laboratory service. That would not only benefit the laboratory service; it would provide a great deal of benefit to the public.
As I understand it, the Government are already committed to the idea of industrial democracy in the private sector, although I know that we shall have to fight a difficult battle against the captains of industry who do not want to see their employees on the Board with them. We are experimenting in this way in the nationalised industries. Surely here is an opportunity to extend these experiments to the public sector. The board that I have suggested would be within the National Health Service, yet it would be self-contained. That would be a worthwhile experiment, particularly as we know that in April 1978 the TUC said


that it wished to see industrial democracy in the Health Service extended so that representation was 50–50 between independent trade unions on the regional and area health authorities.
I do not believe that we should miss the chance of doing something positive about industrial democracy by giving workers this opportunity to participate in the work of their organisations. This is something that is worth considering, and it would be of value not only to the workers but also to the service and the general public. Let us seize this opportunity.
I agree with most of the things that have been said in relation to Porton. The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford, my right hon. Friend and myself are at one when we say that Porton is an excellent centre. It can be used in many instances. In welcoming the Bill, I should also like to extend its functions, and I shall come to that in due course.
We must talk about dangerous pathogens in the light of the Shooter report. Porton offers the facilities that we are looking for in respect of dangerous pathogens. Porton has the things that we ought to be going for in the interests of safety. For instance, it has facilities that are second to none in this country. That is a very good reason why it should be used in this way. Both sides of the House have paid tribute to the experience of the staff. Here again, the staff are extremely well qualified in this area, and this is another very good reason why Porton should be used.
I come to an important point that I stressed in the Adjournment debate which I initiated in relation to dangerous pathogens and laboratories for pathogens. This concerns the question of security arrangements. In this respect, Porton is second to none. There is absolutely no danger. As well as its isolation, it is very secure with perimeter fences, guards, and all the rest. That makes it an ideal site for research into dangerous pathogens. For all these reasons, we ought to develop Porton as a work centre for dangerous pathogens.
When Porton is compared with Birmingham or, indeed, with St. Mary's Hospital, Paddington—which aroused many people's fears about the dangerous

work being carried out there—it can be seen that there would be no fears at all if this work was concentrated at Porton. I recommend this approach to my right hon. Friend. I believe that Porton has a great deal of advantage over any other centre of which I can think. That is why I ask him to look again at this question.
In addition, I believe that Porton ought to be developed as a centre of expertise on safety in microbiological work. It ought to be able to provide special functions and facilities in this regard. For instance, it should be able to train staff from other laboratories in relation to safe working conditions. Where better for people to be trained in this respect than at Porton?
This centre has also built up a great deal of knowledge and expertise in relation to suitable containment facilities. Surely that can be used to build up suitable containment facilities elsewhere. In fact, Porton should act as consultant with regard to this kind of thing. It could also advise laboratories generally. Who better to do so than people in safe laboratories?
The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford referred to what had been said about other laboratories which until recently were considered safe. That is another reason why Clive Jenkins did a first-class job. I do not believe that the laboratory at Colindale would have been closed had it not been for Clive Jenkins and the publication of the Shooter report, because the inspections would not have been carried out. When they were carried out, a laboratory that was supposed to have been first-class and absolutely safe had to be closed. The same cannot be said of Porton.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The Secretary of State made the report available in confidence to a good number of interests—indeed, to anyone who would have been involved in acting on the recommendations of the Shooter report. It did not require the report to be splashed over the television and the newspapers for action to be taken. For a trade union leader to imagine that he can act only once he has seen something in headlines seems to be the height of irresponsibility.

Mr. Hoyle: The trouble with the right hon. Gentleman is that when the report


was published he got off on the wrong foot on a radio programme and never recovered from it. That is really his trouble. He was wrong-footed. Of course, his colleague went off on a different tack. It is not the first time that the right hon. Gentleman has got off on the wrong foot. Many of us remember his advice on cleaning people's teeth, and all the rest. But I wish that he would learn a lesson. I hope that he does not intervene again. Why does not he admit that there is a great deal of difference between "Jenkin" and "Jenkins"? Thank God for it. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman come clean and say "Thank you very much, Mr. Clive Jenkins, for what you did in this respect"?
There was no secret about the Shooter report, and no confidences were broken, but, because of what Clive Jenkins did, health and safety in laboratories are now foremost in people's minds. I know that the people of Birmingham will be very grateful for what Mr. Jenkins did. It is time that the right hon. Gentleman at least admitted that he was wrong and that it was unfortunate that he went down the wrong path.

Mr. Robin Hodgson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have seen the report in Medical World headlined
It takes a death—we publish Professor Shooter.
Does the hon. Gentleman think that that is a balanced assessment of the report as a whole, particularly when published under that sort of screaming headline?

Mr. Hoyle: We suffered the loss of a member. It was needless for that lady to have lost her life. That was absolutely deplorable.

Mr. Ron Thomas: The headline should have been in black.

Mr. Hoyle: Of course it should. I make no apologies for what was said in Medical World. Every hon. Member ought to regret that that lady lost her life. Her mother also died, but it was only by the grace of God that her husband was not a carrier, because he was in contact with a large number of people in the Birmingham area. There could have been an epidemic. I believe that we have been very mild indeed. We cannot bring our member back, but I do

not believe that we need interruptions of the hon. Gentleman's sort.

Mr. John Lee (Birmingham, Handsworth): Is it not rather ironical that people complain about the alleged sensational character of that headline, whereas they are silent about the fusillade of strident headlines in newspapers that have been attacking NUPE and other trade unions for weeks and weeks—ever since the present industrial disputes began—with reckless regard for the truth and for people's feelings?

Mr. Hoyle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is true. But he knows as well as I that what the Conservative Opposition are going through in a search for bogy-men. Trade union leaders are pictured as bogy-men. If it was not Clive Jenkins, it would probably be Alan Fisher. Before him, it was Moss Evans. It must be remembered that a few years ago it was Hugh Scanlon and Jack Jones, who later suddenly became statesmen. It was Frank Cousins before that, and then he became a statesman. That is the way it goes. At present, the Conservative Opposition are doing their usual thing and looking for bogy-men. They adopt the attitude of "Never mind the facts, let us find an Aunt Sally and knock it down".
It is very difficult indeed to put down Clive Jenkins when he is on to something like this. I believe that he has done a first-class job, and I do not apologise at all for what was said in Medical World. In fact, if anything, we were far too mild, considering that we lost a member. But we intend to protect that member's family, although that will not bring back the loss of a devoted wife and mother.
I apologise for going on at some length, but this is rather an emotional issue in our union. We thought that it was a needless death, which should not have occurred had safety been up to the standard that we were told it was. This points to the need for other people in the scientific world being involved.
The difference between DPAG—the Dangerous Pathogens Advisory Group—and GMAG—the Genetic Manipulation Advisory Group—in relation to safety is that in GMAG we have trade union representatives and representatives of the public. That is why there are far safer provisions in genetic engineering than we


have had from DPAG, in which only scientists are involved. That is why DPAG must be restructured.
Porton should be used as a centre of expertise on safety. That can be done, and it is an aspect in the Bill that I welcome. Porton can also provide support, advice and assistance to the Health and Safety Commission and its Inspectorate. The Commission is doing a first class job but it now needs the support and advice of experts on safety in laboratories. The staff at Porton are the people most able to provide that.
We are moving into the sphere of biotechnology. This is of great importance to our industrial and economic future. But it will throw up new and significant problems. It will create new occupational health problems. That is why a safe laboratory such as Porton is the place where the lessons and experience can best be gained.
I turn to the question of genetic engineering. The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford said that genetic engineering would create many great benefits for mankind. I certainly agree, but great dangers are also involved. That is why Porton should be the centre for genetic engineering. Porton should be the place where the experiments are carried out. Our knowledge should be built up in such a secure place.
I shudder at what might happen because of the huge profits that are to be made from genetic engineering. Already chemical and pharmaceutical manufacturers are moving in. I am afraid that short cuts will be taken. Therein lies the danger, not only to the people working in the laboratories but to the general public. There could be another epidemic unless genetic engineering takes place in safe conditions. Porton should be built up so that experiments can take place there.
Genetic engineering offers massive profits as well as benefits. The financial benefits as well as the other benefits should accrue to the public sector. I urge the Secretary of State to examine this matter. Can we not extend the Public Health Laboratory Service in this respect? Could it not manufacture commercially the results of experiments in genetic engineering and sell them overseas? We must have public involvement. It is far

too dangerous to be left to the private sector.
There are problems which involve the World Health Organisation internationally. We have started something that is the envy of the world, but there are dangers in countries such as Switzerland, where there are no regulations to govern scientific research. A real danger to mankind arises because of that.
Let us seize the opportunity not only to conduct experiments at Porton but to expand the Public Health Laboratory Service to enable it to undertake commercial work so that we can reap the benefits of a new and expanding science. In the past, scientific and engineering experiments have been carried out in the public sector but the profits have gone to the private sector. We should not make that mistake again. That would be too dangerous. In addition, when public money is involved the public should benefit.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will take on board what I have said about industrial democracy, dangerous pathogens and about Porton being a centre of excellence. I hope that he will ensure that the Public Health Laboratory Service is expanded so that we can reap the benefits from experiments at Porton.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the private sector is allowed to exploit these opportunities the public sector will have to deal with the dangers that might arise as a result?

Mr. Hoyle: I agree. The public sector would have to examine the situation and try to remedy it. An epidemic could wipe out the whole of mankind. This could be as dangerous as nuclear weapons—perhaps, in some ways, even more dangerous. There might not be a Clive Jenkins to come to the rescue. That is why I emphasise that we should keep genetic engineering in the public sector as far as possible.
I apologise for taking so long, but it is an important subject. What is happening at Porton is right. Let us develop its facilities to the full. If we do that, we shall help to achieve health and safety in laboratories generally.

5.17 p.m.

Mr. Michael Hamilton: This rather humdrum little Bill signals the


end of one of Britain's great defence projects. I mean no disrespect to the two Ministers on the Government Front Bench, but I cannot help feeling that the wrong Ministers are in the Chamber. The Secretary of State for Defence is responsible for the Microbiological Research Establishment and remains so until 1 April. The Secretary of State for Defence is in the House and I should have liked him to find time to come into the Chamber. The Secretary of State for Defence has decided to dispense with this establishment, but he has left the hapless health Ministers to pick up the pieces.
I should prefer to avoid controversy and to be constructive. But in my part of the world we have suffered a series of body blows from successive Labour Administrations. I remember April 1965, when Mr. Roy Jenkins, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, introduced his Budget in the course of which he announced the abandonment of the TSR2 project.
The TSR2 was undergoing tests near Salisbury. The House will know that it was exceeding the hopes of its designers, that it flew daily up to the Pennines and down to the Isles of Scilly and that it was a world-beater. But the then Chancellor of the Exchequer signed its death warrant. Today, perhaps less dramatically, it is the same story and another great defence project is being abandoned.
Surprisingly, perhaps, it was the Attlee Government who created the establishment as we know it today. That was done immediately after the war. The need to protect the civil population was appreciated. Top priority was accorded to the project. It was a time of shortages. Building materials were scarce, but nothing was allowed to delay the project. Bricks were used because bricks were available, and the building needed about 12 million bricks. It is one of the largest brick buildings in the world. it contains more than 100 laboratories. It stands in open country a few miles to the northeast and in sight of the spire of Salisbury cathedral.
There is a question that I have put many times in the House, but no Minister has seen fit to answer it. If the Attlee Government were right to establish the Microbiological Research Establishment, how can the Callaghan Government also

be right to abandon it? I hope that when the Under-Secretary of State replies he will answer that simple question.

Mr. Ennals: I am sad to hear the hon. Gentleman delivering a funeral oration. It seems appropriate that the Government have decided, in recognising the service performed by the establishment over 40 years under the responsibility of the Minister of Defence, to create a new centre and a new future for it. As the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) has said, it has a new future with rosy prospects. It will be under distinguished leadership and under civilian control. Surely we should welcome the decision to create a new body built on the experience of the old. I believe that the new body will last as long as the old and make as great a contribution to our civilian and peaceful life as the research centre did in time of war.

Mr. Hamilton: With respect, I am expressing essentially a defence concern. I appreciate that locks will not be turned in the doors of an empty building. I appreciate that some life will continue after 1 April. I am grateful for that. However, the establishment was considered vital and now the view is taken that we can virtually dispense with it. That is what worries me.
At present, the staff number about 400, of whom 10 are to continue with defence work. If there were dangerous days when the establishment was set up after the war, there are far more dangerous days today. In the days immediately after the war we did not have foreign aircraft in our own skies, but now several times every week long-range Soviet surveillance aircraft enter our skies at an altitude of about 10 to 15 miles. it is right that the House should appreciate the dangers.
It is an infinitely simple and cheap operation for one aircraft to disseminate disease germs from a spray tank. There is no need for an armada of aircraft. One aircraft making use of prevailing winds can cause major damage to this island. Micro-organisms can be neither seen nor smelt. Delivery by one bomber of 10 tons of a biological agent on an unprotected population would affect an area several hundred times greater than a one-megaton nuclear bomb.
There are many diseases that lend themselves to military use. It is necessary to choose only one off the shelf. Anthrax is a good example. An anti-anthrax serum is available if scientists are available to make it. Without it the disease is almost always fatal. There is a range of choice. There are plague, cholera, viral encephalitis. All these germs are easily manufactured, all are horrific and all are cheap. Biological warfare is bargain basement stuff.
The Microbiological Research Establishment was set up after the war as a modest insurance policy, no more and no less. It was established to mitigate disaster and to protect the civil population. However, in six weeks' time the Secretary of State for Defence is to wash his hands of it. Only the 10 scientists of whom I have spoken are to continue with the defence effort. After 30 years, and in threatening times, the insurance policy is to be torn up.
I question the wisdom of that. It is right that the House should be aware of what is being done. At a moment when the Soviet Union is enlarging its capacity for biological warfare, it seems highly questionable that we should be submitting the civil population to additional risk and be offering it that much less protection.
I turn to the effects of the changes on those who work at the establishment. As my right hon. Friend said, three full years have passed since the Ministry of Defence announced that there were to be significant economies. They have been unhappy years. I am sure that the decision was taken and the announcement made with no clear idea of its implementation. The Government plunged in without knowing how far away the far bank lay and without appreciating the complexity of the journey.
Over the past 30 years, the establishment has built up a worldwide reputation as a centre of excellence in microbial research and development. It has been a source of pride to those who have worked at it. It rivals anything in the free world today. I believe that the Secretary of State will agree with me.
Anyone who happens to represent Salisbury in this place is bound to get to know pretty well the scientists who work at the establishment. They have their weekends

off like the rest of us and they have a social side to their lives. In the establishment there are physicists, chemists, epidemiologists, bacteriologists and biochemists. There is a whole range of skills.
Three years of uncertainty have taken their toll. Consultation has been imperfect. That was well illustrated by the letter read out by my right hon. Friend. Morale is low. The quality of work of a skilled man is not improved if he is uncertain how long his job will continue. It is a parallel situation to that of a private company faced with a successful takeover.

Mr. Ennals: The hon. Gentleman made a comparison with a takeover. There was a long period of uncertainty while the Government weighed up the pros and cons on what the establishment's future and management structure should be, and which Department should have responsibility for it. I understand that those working there in that period felt their morale sinking. However, when I visited the establishment I found that morale was not low. People working there had been appointed, in many cases, to their new posts. They were looking forward to doing their jobs. They felt that they had resources at their disposal. Morale was rapidly improving. That will continue to be so. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will encourage that spirit among the staff rather than the spirit of despondency.

Mr. Hamilton: I intended to pay a tribute to the Secretary of State for finding time, in a difficult moment in the nation's affairs, to visit that remote place. Of course, time was short. I am delighted that his impression was not that morale was low as a result of three years of uncertainty. I wish I could go all the way with the right hon. Gentleman on that point. However, I appreciate that he carved out time to go there.
One of the difficulties is that a scientist who is a civil servant will face loss in his career prospects when he goes over to the Public Health Laboratory Service. The Minister agreed that when transferred the scientist should retain his existing civil servant's terms and conditions. I appreciate that. When he becomes due for promotion, he must forfeit those safeguards that he retains while he is a civil


servant. That point has already been put to him. I hope that it may be ironed out before the Bill goes much further.
I have a great regard for the Public Health Laboratory Service. I was pleased that my right hon. Friend paid tribute to its director. I am less certain that this is the right home for the establishment. I should be slightly happier if the establishment went to the Department of Health and Social Security direct. By doing so it would have more of the authority of the Government. It would be directly responsible to the Government. The establishment, even shorn of its defence work, still has an essential role to play.
My right hon. Friend stressed that we were on the threshold of a breakthrough in microbiology. Complicated, difficult and expensive chemicals will be suddenly simple to produce by means of microbiological processes. My right hon. Friend said that it was the silicon chip story all over again. Certainly the significance of this to industry cannot be over-emphasised.
I have known the establishment for a good many years, at least for long enough to appreciate what a national asset it is. Now the teams of scientists will be broken up. Some of the teams have been together for some years. Each knows instinctively how the others' minds work. It is like a football field in which each player without having to look knows precisely what his colleagues are doing.
Some scientists may apply for early retirement. Others may work for private industry. Some may go overseas. Their services will be lost to this country. It is often said that, if the United Nations were disbanded, the nations would unite tomorrow to rebuild a new world organisation. In the same way I am anxious, as the Government may find that they are destroying an establishment which they may have to re-create almost at once and at vast expense. Voltaire said:
If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him.
I am anxious that something of value may be lost and that within a year or two it will prove necessary to re-create it.
I bear no animosity towards the Secretary of State and his Under-Secretary. They are in the position of a local authority which suddenly finds that a

priceless mediaeval church in the middle of its city has been declared redundant. They are faced with a problem of what is to be done with this great structure and the talent within it. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for having visited the establishment and to the Under-Secretary who braved the snow when visiting Salisbury Plain yesterday. He will have gained first-hand knowledge of this matter. I appreciate that.
I am especially grateful to the Secretary of State for offering to see members of staff if that would help. I hope that I may hold him to that offer and that I may bring two or three members of staff —I know how busy the Minister is—to discuss these points in the near future.
I beg the two Ministers involved to move slowly and to consider the contribution to our national life that the establishment makes. I ask them to consider whether some appreciable improvements cannot be made to the Bill between now and the Committee stage.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. Robin Hodgson: My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Hamilton) touched on a number of important issues, especially the protection of our civilian population. I shall return to that point later. One of the Government's most important duties is to protect the citizens of this country. My hon. Friend made some telling points.
I congratulate the Secretary of State on having paid tribute to the work at Porton Down. That tribute compares favourably with the perfunctory way in which this Bill was introduced in another place, when the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell devoted five paragraphs in Hansard to introducing the Bill. One of those paragraphs was devoted to an announcement that he had placed some kidney donor cards in the Library. It was hard on the staff at Porton Down—after their work, which was acknowledged on both sides—that the change should have been proposed in such a perfunctory way.
Other points raised in that debate were not adequately covered. I ask the Under-Secretary to turn his attention to them when he replies. The first is the financial effects of the Bill. From the explanatory and financial memorandum I see that the new laboratory will cost from £2


million to £2½ million per annum to run. In reply to the debate in another place, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell said that the present cost was £1·6 million to the Ministry of Defence. He also announced that the reduction in staff would be of the order of one-third. By my simple arithmetic, that means that we are now paying £2·5 million, as opposed to £1·6 milion, for an establishment which has one-third less staff. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will comment on that. There was reference also in the debate to the fact that the establishment had been quite deliberately run down, and that an element of capital expenditure would be needed for various reasons. Perhaps the Minister will illuminate the reasons for the apparent loss in productivity or, alternatively, the apparent requirements and needs to which the additional capital expenditure will be put.
My next point arises from clause 2. The Secretary of State says that he has still not decided whether to use the powers granted to him under clause 2. Signing a blank cheque in private life is considered to be a foolish thing to do, and to some extent we are signing a blank cheque here.

Mr. Ennals: We have not signed it yet.

Mr. Hodgson: The Secretary of State may say that he has not signed it, but we shall be giving him the pen with which to sign it when we pass the Bill. He may not use the pen, but he has the pen and he has the cheque. This matter is worthy of comment and I should like to have a further response from the Government on it.
The use of the word "conveniently" in the phrase
can conveniently be carried on
strikes some horror in my heart, because the word "conveniently" seems to me to be capable of definition to suit almost any circumstances.
Following the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury, I have also been very much concerned with what used to be called civil defence and is now called home defence. My hon. Friend referred to the dangers, as did the Secretary of State, but it is hard for an out-

sider, who has perhaps not looked at what is, after all, a very small subsection of any Government's policy—the provision of adequate civil defence—to realise just how run down is Britain's home defence establishment.
In 1968 the present Prime Minister, who was then Home Secretary, used a phrase which parallels precisely that which was used by my hon. Friend. When the then Home Secretary announced the running down of home defence, he described the cost of maintaining a civil defence force and civil defence precautions as being an insurance premium which had to be judged against the size of the risk involved.
I support the view that not enough thought or careful consideration has been given to balancing the size of the premium to the size of the risk. My hon. Friend touched very much more eloquently than I could on the dangers that could arise from this source. The fact is that Britain's home defence is now run down, and the policies being followed are at best obsolescent. Those policies nearly always concentrate on the impact of nucclear warfare. Virtually no thought has been given by local authorities to training at regional or national level for the purpose of minimising the results of chemical or bacteriological warfare. It is in relation to these matters that the Microbiological Research Establishment has such a valuable role to play.
I should like to know whether the Under-Secretary of State feels that the use of the word "conveniently" is correct in the context of seeking to provide that in future there will be adequate and continuing research to ensure that the civilian population of this country is adequately protected.

Mr. Lee: I am following the hon. Gentleman with some interest. Perhaps he would be good enough to enlarge upon the way in which he envisages that it is possible, as eloquently described by his hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Hamilton), to protect the population against the dissemination of germs, because I have a suspicion that that exercise might well prove to be as futile as some of the suggestions made some while ago concerning protection against nuclear warfare.

Mr. Hodgson: It is quite true to say that there is no absolute 100 per cent. protection, but adequate knowledge and training can help to minimise casualties. We may be talking here about a very large risk, but such training can minimise, as far as it is possible to do so, the dangers to the civilian population.
I should like to deal with the hon. Gentleman's comment about nuclear warfare, if I can do so within the remit of the Bill. An estimate has been made of the difference between Britain adequately protected by home defence and Britain not protected at all, and a figure of 20 million lives has been given. That is the estimated difference if the population has been adequately warned about the way in which to protect itself from the effects of nuclear fall-out. The information is freely available and can be discussed with the Home Secretary. There is undoubtedly a chance of saving more people if we have adequate home defence, although obviously it cannot save everybody.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) and the Secretary of State both referred to genetic manipulation. Despite the doom-bug scare talk, there is no doubt that glittering prizes are available where successful research is carried out. My right hon. Friend referred to the production of insulin. It may be of interest that this is now beginning to be produced commercially, by means of genetic manipulation processes, by pharmaceutical companies in the United States.
There is also the possibility of vastly improved yields from arable crops which have their own self-fertilising mechanisms built into them. Some fantastic advances can be made in that direction. The objective would be to reduce greatly the starvation in the world and to increase greatly the standard of living and food intake in large parts of the world which currently have no hope of being adequately fed.
Why does this particularly involve Porton? I understand that Porton has the only category 4 laboratory to carry out the most risky and potentially the most fruitful, experiments. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to reassure us that the passage of the Bill will not in any way be yet another

hindrance to the work on genetic manipulation. The Government's treatment of the subject, whether by Act of Parliament or by statutory instrument, can hardly be said to have been even-handed or constant. The Williams committee, which was set up to follow the Ashby working party, put forward as its main recommendation that
experiments in genetic manipulation, conducted in appropriate conditions of physical and biological containment should be encouraged".
Notwithstanding this, we have had the establishment of the Genetic Manipulation Advisory Group, GMAG. There has been a good deal of controversy within the scientific community about the way in which the operations of that group are carried out and about the fact that commercial safety and security are not always maintained. But even the first report of GMAG suggests that the dangers have been considerably exaggerated. Paragraph 5.9 of its first report said that
if the present trend continues, of increasing reassurance and evidence that the conjectured hazards have been overstated, more work will be judged appropriate to the lower categories of containment.
At paragraph 12.2 it said:
If those findings stand up to careful scrutiny it will appear that many of the more extravagant predictions of risk can probably be disregarded.
Porton Down provides a laboratory for the most dangerous category of genetic manipulation experiments, and it is most likely to be affected by the switch of authority and the multiple masters that that field has to serve. Experiments in manipulation are becoming hopelessly boxed in. The Health and Safety Executive is responsible to the Department of Employment, and the Genetic Manipulation Advisory Group is responsible to the Department of Education and Science. We now have Porton Down with its category 4 laboratory responsible to the Secretary of State. The shuffling of power, authority and responsibility between the three Ministries endangers the impetus, urgency and prospect of the country leading the way in this fruitful field.
The present structure for the control of genetic manipulation experiments is not satisfactory. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) is no longer present. I can now quote from his


Medical World with approval rather than disapproval as I did before. Clive Jenkins write in there that
The Genetic Manipulation Advisory Group should be brought within the Health and Safety Executive.
That would involve only two Ministries instead of three.
The analogy has been made that this is the silicon chip of the next decade. A few years ago this country led the world in experimenting with microprocessors. We have largely thrown away our lead, and the NEB is spending £50 million to re-establish our presence in that field. It would be a tragedy to throw away a similar reputation and lead in genetic manipulation. I shall be looking for reassurance from the Under-Secretary of State that the change of control of this laboratory will not affect that work.
I am concerned about the value for money of the transfer. The staff is being cut by a third, but the cost is going up by 50 per cent. There is also no assurance that defence research capability will be maintained. So much hangs on that one word in the opening clause of the Bill. Thirdly, I am concerned that genetic manipulation may be put at risk. Yet another Ministry will be involved and a further set of controls established which will further discourage commercial firms from using Britain as a research base for this most exciting scientific prospect. The dangers have been much over-estimated, and the prospects and rewards are greater than was originally thought.

5.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Eric Deakins): The debate has been interesting, in places passionate and both pessimistic and optimistic. I hope that by the end of the debate all hon. Members will feel that there is some scope for optimism.
I visited Porton for the first time yesterday. I was extremely impressed, not merely as a non-scientist looking at elaborate scientific apparatus and experiments and talking to highly qualified staff, but the ambience makes one confident and convinced that Porton has been. is and will continue to be, a genuine centre of excellence.
There is general agreement in the House that genetic manipulation and the

general use of bugs—to use a nonscientific word—for industrial and public health processes require tremendous Government involvement. That is not disrespectful to British industry. Larger firms such as ICI, Shell and British Petroleum are doing their own research. They are interested in certain aspects of the commercial application of research and not necessarily involved with public health. It was essential that the Government should decide to maintain the civilian work and channel it to help public health and ultimately industry. A partnership between the Government and industry in this field will guarantee a secure industrial future. Without that, we cannot provide the necessary production and wealth.
The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) paid tribute to the safety and excellence of Porton. That view has been endorsed by the other hon. Members who have spoken. The right hon. Gentleman had three main themes. First, there was the general question of the reports and the delay in reaching a decision. There have been three reports. The first one, from the Central Policy Review Staff, was confidential to the Government. I do not believe that it is in a form that any Government would wish to see published. Most CPRS reports are not available for public consumption. However, there is the MRC report under Sir Robert Williams. As a Minister in the Department of Health and Social Security I cannot give an undertaking on this, since the MRC is not a direct departmental responsibility but comes under the Department of Education and Science. I shall have a word with my right hon. Friend to see whether those parts of the report that have been made available to the staff can be placed in the Library. It is possible that the whole report could be made available, but that is not an undertaking that I can give. It is an interesting report.
The delay is a matter of public concern. The Government initially decided that the Ministry of Defence requirements for the services of the Microbiological Research Establishment could be met by a small team transferred to the Chemical Defence Establishment. In October 1976 we asked the Central Policy Review Staff to conduct a study


of the possible future civil use of MRE. Following its report, we decided that MRE should be kept open as a civil establishment but on a reduced scale. Arguments were put forward for closing the establishment down, but common sense and reason prevailed.

Mr. Michael Hamilton: It is possible that I misheard the Minister. Did he say that this decision was taken in 1970?

Mr. Deakins: We initially decided that the defence requirements could be handled at the Chemical Defence Establishment. That left the problem of the civilian work, because the Ministry of Defence no longer wished to continue with that.

Mr. Hamilton: I did not hear the date that the Minister gave, but it sounded like 1970?

Mr. Deakins: In October 1976 we asked the CPRS to report. Following that report we decided that MRE should be kept open as a civil establishment. It was necessary to have expert guidance, and in April 1977 we asked the Medical Research Council to review the capacity of MRE for civil research. Following that report, an official group was asked to examine possible management arrangements for the civil establishment. It was a complex matter. There are at least half a dozen Government Departments interested in the continuing civilian work at Porton. We had the largest present and potential future interest. It was therefore decided that my right hon. Friend should resume ministerial responsibility. A number of other Departments could have taken it on, but in the circumstances I think that we took the right decision.
The DHSS does not directly manage establishments such as MRE. We do not have the capacity or the experience to do so. Since much of the work of MRE is civil and already falls within the general responsibility of the Public Health Laboratory Service Board, and as that Board has considerable experience of managing laboratories up and down the country, we thought that we should invite it to take over the establishment. The operational date will be 1 April 1979.
There have been some other arguments put forward by the staff. It was argued that, in the interests of safety, MRE should be run by a Government Department directly or by the Health and Safety Executive. I do not think that the latter argument could be sustained. Certainly the HSE has an important role to play in laboratory safety, but that is only one aspect of its work. We think that the work at MRE is more appropriately managed by the PHLS Board, for the reasons that I have indicated. We do not think that it would be appropriate for the HSE to take over.
The HSE has basically an enforcement role. The work of the establishment in the field of safety has to be coordinated with the HSE, but this is not sufficient argument for placing the establishment directly under the control of the HSE itself. We share the PHLS Board's wish to see it develop as a centre of excellence and as one of a number of sources of advice on matters of laboratory safety. We are already considering this with the Board, and we have in mind the need to integrate the advisory function with other advisory machinery such as a re-constituted Dangerous Pathogens Advisory Group.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to talk about the need to have a strong research base in microbiology in the United Kingdom, and he suggested that we needed a separate division for commercial work. The House may find this information helpful for the record. I shall describe the pattern of work going on and what is envisaged by PHLS. The major areas of civil funded work currently being carried out at MRE and envisaged as continuing in CAMR are as follows—first, diagnosis and research on dangerous infectious diseases such as Lassa fever; secondly, research and development into and production of therapeutic enzymes such as asparaginase, used for treatment of certain forms of leukaemia in children; vaccines such as anthrax, botulinum toxoid and tick-borne encephalitis; and microbial products ranging from frozen pastes of whole cells of bacteria to separate components of cells, such as DNA genetic material, specific enzymes or cell wall components. A particular aspect is the development of enzymes and reagents for use in diagnosis of disease. The third area is experimental


work in genetic engineering including experiments requiring the maximum level of containment, which is category 4.
A broad programme of work for CAMR has been drawn up by Sir Robert Williams—director of PHLS and a much respected scientist—in consultation with the staff of the MRE. Sir Robert chaired the MRC study on the use of MRE for civil research. This programme comprises, first, the cultivation of bacteria and other microbes and extraction from them of material for use in the making of microbial products which can be used as chemical reagents in the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of non-infective diseases; in medical, veterinary or biological research; in the decontamination of the environment, materials or equipment; and in other industrial processes.
The second category in the programme is the extraction of therapeutic, diagnostic and research agents from human tissues, including blood, and from animal or plant tissues. The third category is the design and production of equipment for microbiological laboratories. The fourth category is genetic manipulation experiments. Last, but by no means least, is the commercial manufacture and sale in the United Kingdom and overseas of any material in the first of those three categories.
Speaking entirely as a non-scientist I shall give more details of the commercial aspects. I understand that bacteria can be "trained" to eat almost anything. At MRE work has been done in "training" them to eat toxic materials. Further work in this direction may include such things as the destruction of cyanide in rubbish tips or toxic materials in the human body. An example of the kind of activity we have in mind is "training" bacteria to eat industrial waste.
One of the categories that I mentioned, which was the extraction of therapeutic and diagnostic tissues, has a number of applications for public health. An example is the extraction of human growth hormones from pituitary glands. Another application is sterile packaging facilities.
The category concerned with the design and production of equipment for microbiological laboratories includes the setting up of a reference laboratory dealing

with laboratory safety. It will be concerned with the development and testing of safety equipment used in medical and cognate laboratories. There is a certain amount of scope there for co-operation with the Health and Safety Executive.
Everyone who has spoken in the debate has mentioned genetic manipulation, or "engineering". There is a lot of public misunderstanding about this. It uses the technology of recombinant DNA, whereby DNA is taken from one organism and spliced on to DNA from another. To control this in Britain, we have the Health and Safety (Genetic Manipulation) Regulations which came into force on 1 August 1978. At CAMR the technique will be employed, for example, in identifying the fractions of bacteria which give the protective effect to vaccines with the object of enabling the bulk production of protective material without the toxic effects often present in the whole bacteria. I was told yesterday that one only uses that part of the bacteria which is needed; one does not have to inject the lot into the human body or the animal concerned.
I hope that that is enough scientific jargon from a non-scientist, but it was necessary to get on the record the fact that there is a great deal of continuing and valuable work in this field.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about new work and industrial microbiology. Some of the existing work has a considerable commercial spin-off. The scientists, being pure scientists, and researchers are always looking for new ways of doing things and new techniques. There is nothing in the arrangements being made in this Bill to prevent that scientific research from continuing. There could be new work in industrial biology on a contract basis. This is not going on at the moment. But one can envisage possibilities of co-operation with commercial firms, pharmaceutical companies, and so on. This could be done, and if necessary it would be open to the PHLS Board and the management at Porton to bring in extra staff on a contract basis in order to do the work on a customer contractor principle which is widely accepted in Government.
There is a need for continuing real, basic scientific research at Porton. There is no shadow of doubt that this will


continue and will be enlarged. I saw only a small amount of it, but I was very impressed, especially by what is being done with therapeutic enzymes. There are many enzymes, of course, and so far the scientists have tackled only two or three, but they are constantly looking ahead.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The anxiety that has been expressed and which I tried to voice is about the words "health orientation" that appear in the PHLS documents. This is important—the words would not cover the kind of industrial activities to which I referred in the field of bio-technology. I wonder whether the Minister can explain what is meant by "health orientation" and how far that is to be exclusive.

Mr. Deakins: The health orientation cannot be exclusive. We do need a core of work at Porton. This is a continuation, by and large, perhaps with some reorganisation, of the existing scientific work in the fields that I have mentioned. That core is absolutely invaluable not only in providing commercial spin-offs but in enabling other basic research to be linked in with it, because, frankly, it would be possible to envisage an establishment which was very bitty, in which there was no continuing theme in the work at all. We believe that the health theme, particularly the public health and the national health theme, is one that will be of great benefit to the NHS and the people of this country without at the same time excluding other wider applications of that work.
The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford also referred, as did his hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Hamilton)—who has a very close constituency interest in this matter—to the staff uncertainty at Porton. Perhaps I may make a few comments on that position. The staff spoke to me for quite a long time yesterday. I went there to listen to their points. I took with me a senior civil servant. It was a meeting attended by the deputy director and Sir Robert Williams himself, and representatives of the various staff groups.
We should also bear in mind that there are not merely scientists at Porton. There are a number of technicians and other people, members of the TGWU and one

or two other unions, who were also present at the meeting.
First, on the general point about terms and conditions of transfer, I could go into detail if the House were to press me, but I hope that there is no need for that because, by and large, I think that they are fairly sensible terms of transfer. They have been put into operation where existing staff have applied for PHLS jobs. I think that the feeling of the scientific staff to whom I spoke yesterday—the Institution of Professional Civil Servants local branch, if that is what it is—was that they should have some further concessions from the Ministry of Defence, their current employer, in terms of having at one and the same time the option of working for the PHLS—depending on the jobs that are advertised and so on and become available to them—or having a job elsewhere in the Civil Service, or having voluntary redundancy.
One has to say that there is no compulsion on the staff there, obviously, to move with their work to the new authority. One hopes that they will do so, because there are some brilliant people there, and we certainly would not want to lose them. But, if they choose not to accept offers from the PHLS, the Civil Service Department—the Department which manages these things—is ready to use its best offices to place them elsewhere in the Civil Service. Failing a satisfactory outcome to the CSD's efforts to place staff elsewhere, they would be eligible for the normal Civil Service redundancy compensation arrangements.
I hope that the discussions which are still going on will lead to a satisfactory outcome. It is a rather complicated series of discussions, because we have discussions at national level—between my Department, the Ministry of Defence and the PHLS, on the one side, and the Institution of Professional Civil Servants, in London, I imagine—and there are also the local discussions going on down at Porton.
One of the difficulties in recent months may have been that there has been a lack of communication between the centre and Porton, perhaps on both sides. I shall say no more about that. I got the impression yesterday that the staff had not been kept as fully informed as they might have been. However, I hope that my visit


yesterday will have resolved that matter. Certainly the management there are very keen to ensure that the staff are brought fully into the picture.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) asked, first, about industrial democracy. I think that most Labour Members, and perhaps hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, are in favour of some form of industrial democracy. That is obviously a matter for the NHS. My hon. Friend said that some of the nationalised industries have gone ahead with it. All that I can say to him now is that the general issue of industrial democracy in the NHS is under consideration between my Department and the Health Service trade unions. I think that it would be inappropriate for us to leap in and go ahead with something at Porton or in the PHLS without having considered first of all the wider implications in the NHS.
We are moving rather slowly, but we are moving cautiously, I hope, because there are some very big issues involved concerning the staff in the NHS. As my hon. Friend will know, we have many staff associations and many trade unions, and not all the interests will necessarily see eye to eye with each other.

Mr. Hoyle: That is why I said that this was a good place to start. It is a self-contained unit. The kind of things to which my hon. Friend is referring do not apply and are not likely to apply in this place. That is well known in the trade unions. Therefore, I do not see the difficulties envisaged in a wider sphere occurring here. it sees to be too good a chance to miss. I hope that my hon. Friend will reconsider this point.

Mr. Deakins: My hon. Friend has made his point. I hope that those who are interested in these matters—and this particularly involves the staff side at Porton; some initiative must come from them—will take his remarks on board. Certainly, however, it would be fair to say that we cannot have PHLS taking a lead when it is part of the wider NHS and there are, perhaps, principles which need to be involved in the NHS which we must get sorted out first before applying them at Porton.
My hon. Friend went on to talk about safety standards and possible transfer of

work. Certainly we want to see safety standards improved. There is even scope for improvement at Porton. A recent Health and Safety Executive inspection at Porton made some positive suggestions for further improvements, and the staff are very mindful of the need for improvements. They are constantly looking for new, better and safer ways of doing things. I think that the House can have every confidence in their ability to advance the frontiers not merely of medical and scientific knowledge but also of safety knowledge.
I cannot at this stage say how far it may be either possible or desirable to concentrate at Porton any of the work with dangerous pathogens which is being conducted in laboratories elsewhere. Although the idea has certain attractions, I am not convinced of the wisdom of concentrating all of our expertise and facilities in one place. In any case, there is a real problem of accommodation in the buildings at MRE. However, I can give the House an assurance that we are considering very carefully whether it would be appropriate for certain work to be transferred, wholly or in part, to Porton. It is not a simple issue, and it is not one on which we can allow ourselves to be rushed into a decision.

Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend has almost anticipated what I have to say in the remarks he has just made. However, may I reinforce what has been said? I represent part of a city which is at the centre of the controversy to which the Shooter report gave vent. We feel deeply disturbed about activities connected with the more virulent bodies being conducted in the bigger cities. When dealing with that matter, will my hon. Friend, even at this late stage, repudiate the disapproving attitude, which has come mainly from the Opposition Benches but to some extent from the Front Bench, about the blowing of secrecy? With my hon. Friend, I am unrepentantly of the view that the more publicity that is given to situations where there are health hazards, the better, even if it sometimes comes about in a rather dramatic and irregular way.

Mr. Deakins: I really have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend said on an earlier occasion.
I now turn to the third point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne. That was about the use of the laboratory in safety training, and so on. My right hon. Friend explained its wider use in advice and training. I think that I have dealt with my hon. Friend's suggestion about the HSE. He certainly made an interesting suggestion, but I think that any approach would need to come from the HSE rather than from my Department.
A number of hon. Members have raised points regarding genetic manipulation and the need for safe and secure conditions. Perhaps I may refer the House to an article by Dr. Harris, the present director, called "Commonsense in Genetic Engineering" published in the magazine Biologist in 1977. In that article, Dr. Harris goes into great detail about the work at Porton, the dangers and hazards, and the misunderstanding that exists in the popular press and the public mind about genetic manipulation. I recommend the article to all hon. Members who have an interest in this matter.
Finally, my hon. Friend referred to the commercial manufacture of genetic products. The scientists at Porton are well aware of the scope that exists when one gets going on genetic manipulation. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) mentioned cereals. When I was at Porton, I was assured that it might be possible in the future, by genetic manipulation, to give cereals the means of fixing their own nitrogen from the air, which would do a great deal throughout the world to save the need for nitrogenous fertilisers. That would be an absolutely invaluable commercial spin-off. That is not in any way barred.
I come now to the points raised by the hon. Member for Salisbury. I cannot comment on some of them. This is not, perhaps, the debate for that. However, I take note of his fear and anguish about the Ministry of Defence decision. The defence work is to continue. As I am not a defence Minister, I cannot say in what way it is being reduced or changed, but it will continue in the Chemical Defence Establishment, to which a number of MRE staff are to be transferred.
Indeed, when one visits the site, one sees that CAMR, the new place, will occupy only a very small part of what

is a very large area. The rest will remain MOD property.
The hon. Gentleman implied that the Government had not appreciated the complexity of the work going on at Porton. I think that I dealt with that point when I said that we took a great deal of time to sort out the complexities and to decide who was to be responsible if the work were to be continued.
The hon. Gentleman said that consultation had been imperfect. In reply to the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford I said that consultation was still continuing. I repeat my right hon. Friend's assurance that, if the staff feel that they would like to see us about matters affecting terms and conditions of service with the PHLS, either he or I will be delighted to see them. However, I must enter the caveat that some of the comments that they made to me yesterday about alternative employment, redundancy and so on are the responsibility not of my Department but of the Ministry of Defence. Therefore, they will need to approach a Minister in that Department.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about teams of scientists being broken up. I sincerely hope that will not happen. It depends on whether they apply for and get the new jobs which are available. I was impressed that the heads of various sections in the new set-up were keen on their work, full of bright ideas and merely waiting for the rest of their scientific staff to be transferred to them.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North asked about finance. The Public Health Laboratory Service is funded by my Department. The net cost to us of the transfer to the PHLSB, including some capital expenditure on essential adaptations and the repayment charges which will arise for services hitherto provided interdepartmentally as allied services, is initially estimated at £2 million to £2½ million a year in current terms. The PESC 1978 survey already contained provision of about £2 million at 1978 survey prices. The existing cost to MOD will be discontinued. In the first two years after the transfer, a small part of the cost of running the new establishment will be met by subventions from several Government Departments. The PHLS is expected to carry out some work for these


Departments in return for the subventions. As part of its general programme, PHLS will undertake remunerative contract work for Government Departments and industry in health microbiology, but the extent to which it can be developed will depend on other demands made on the new establishment and the priority accorded to them.
The hon. Gentleman was right about the MOD cost, but that is a net cost. I do not think that one can compare the MOD cost with the DHSS cost, partly because of the running down of the place. If the hon. Gentleman remains mystified, I undertake to write to him setting out in more detail what is involved, and I shall send a copy to his right hon. Friend.
I hope that I have answered all the points made in the debate and that the House will now give a Second Reading to a small, but important, Bill for the scientific and industrial future of this country.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC HEALTH LABORATORY SERVICE [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend the powers conferred by section 5(2) (c) of the National Health Service Act 1977 and to amend certain provisions of that Act relating to the Public Health Laboratory Service Board, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums so payable under the National Health Service Act 1977.—[Mr. Snape]

VACCINE DAMAGE PAYMENTS BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair.]

Clause 1

PAYMENTS TO PERSONS SEVERELY DISABLED BY VACCINATION

6.24 p.m.

Mr. Jack Ashley: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 12, leave out 'of' and insert
'in proportion to the severity of the disablement and in accordance with the scales laid down in subsection (4), but not exceeding'.

The Chairman: With this we may take the following amendments: No. 5, in page 2, line 20, leave out '80' and insert '20'
No. 6, in page 2, line 23, at end insert
'the payment in the case of 80 per cent. or more disablement being £10,000, in the case of 60 to 79 per cent. being £7,500, in the case of 40 to 59 per cent. being £5,000, and in the case of 20 to 39 per cent. being £2,500;

Mr. Ashley: I am grateful for the opportunity of speaking to these amendments. They are designed to grant percentage payments to children who are damaged less than 80 per cent. by vaccines. The Bill specifies that children must be damaged 80 per cent. or more before they can receive payments of any kind. I believe that to be an arbitrary figure, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will reconsider it.
I recognise that there must be a dividing line somewhere. I know that the mobility and attendance allowances have one level on which the Bill may be based. Nevertheless, there are other examples which I believe should more realistically be used for determining the level in the Bill.
If a child is at all damaged by vaccination it is right that he or she should be paid proportionately to the damage suffered. The example that I quote is not of the mobility allowance or the attendance allowance; it is of the industrial injuries scheme. Under that scheme there is provision for payment to be made for disablement from 20 per cent. up to 100


per cent. I suggest that that is the right basis on which to proceed.
I know that money will not fully compensate for disability, and finding the right basis for payment is difficult. Nevertheless, as the Government have so far not made a specific commitment to an overall scheme, I hope that my right hon. Friend will reconsider his decision, accept the amendment and give a welcome and justified payment to all children who suffer more than 20 per cent. damage from vaccines.

Dr. Gerard Vaughan: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) has an immense reputation for his care and feeling for disabled people, particularly children. Much of the credit for the Bill lies with the hon. Gentleman and Mrs. Fox. Therefore, it was only to be expected that he would table amendments of this kind.
The amendments seek to widen the range of cases brought within the payments scheme and to make the scheme more sensitive to the amount of damage suffered by a child. The Opposition, who understand very well what he has in mind, question whether this is the right Bill or the right occasion and whether these amendments are the right way of dealing with the matter.
The amendments raise the whole question of the aim of the Bill and the purpose of the £10,000. Is it compensation for damage? If so, we feel that it should be a larger sum and that it should be more flexible.
I suggest that children who are not perhaps the most severely damaged may need the largest amount for their future care. The most severely damaged child, talking in terms of future needs, may need a lesser amount.
We went over this ground when we discussed thalidomide damage. At that time many lawyers were thinking of so much for one limb, twice as much for two limbs and three times as much for three limbs. The hon. Gentleman was one of those who explained to the lawyers that that was not satisfactory and that there should he two kinds of payment—a lump sum to cover damage generally and a further sum in trust to cover future needs.
I was disappointed to hear the hon. Gentleman say that he thought the sum should be scaled down for the lesser amounts of damage. Our view is that a child with perhaps 60 per cent. or 50 per cent. damage would need the greater amount of money for his education, for his mobility and to help him to work. What is this money supposed to be for? We understood that it was a lump sum in recognition of the fact that these unfortunate people have become damaged as a result of Government policy. It is a recognition that the Government have some responsibility for what has happened.
It is curious that the Government have considered only those people with 80 per cent. or more damage. On that score, it would seem only just to widen the scheme to all cases of vaccine damage and that anyone with a significant amount of damage should be eligible for a lump sum in terms of Government recognition and responsibility. We understand why the Government have arrived at a lump sum idea. It has our support. But, even at this late stage, we would ask the Government whether there would not be more justice if the scheme were extended to all cases of vaccine damage. We would also ask the Secretary of State to repeat his assurance that this is a one-off operation, which will not prejudice applications to courts and will not prevent any decisions being made under the Pearson committee's recommendations on liability and such matters. It should be regarded purely as a single payment to help people while we are still examining the wider issues.
On that basis, we cannot support these amendments. We hope, however, that the Government will view sympathetically the application of the payment of these lump sums.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. David Ennals): I join the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). There is no doubt that he and the Association of Parents of Vaccine-Damaged Children and Mrs. Fox, its chairman, were instrumental in bringing this issue to the attention of the House and certainly to myself and my right hon. Friend. I warmly congratulate


my hon. Friend and the association for the part that they have played in terms of the progress of the Bill.
I want to reiterate strongly some points that I made when I announced that the Government would legislate and also what I said on Second Reading. We are not talking about compensation. This is a form of payment that we decided we wanted to introduce quickly. Perhaps it should have been done earlier. But having been seized of the urgency, we felt that we should make a payment that would help families and children to deal with some of the problems that faced them. It has always been in that spirit and the wish to help severely disabled children that the Bill was introduced.
It was astute and ingenious of my hon. Friend to have found a way to introduce this proposal in Committee. I am aware that the same view was, and, probably, still is, taken by the Association of Parents of Vaccine-Damaged Children. When the Government first decided that they would be able to bring forward this legislation, I discussed the matter with Mrs. Fox, who clearly felt, and wrote to me expressing her hope, that there should be a graduated scheme, such as that proposed by my hon. Friend.
I have to say that I agree with the hon. Member for Reading, South. I cannot accept the amendment. It would greatly increase the complexity of the scheme. From the outset, we have tried to keep it as simple and uncomplicated as possible. Delays would be caused if the scheme was changed in the way suggested. There would be many cases in which a slight difference in assessment of the extent of disablement would make a significant difference to the size of payment.
Accurate assessment of disablement is more difficult when the disability is only slight or moderate, particularly when a greater or lesser degree of mental handicap is involved. As my hon. Friend knows, the damage is often mental damage. His proposal would certainly lengthen procedures.

Dr. Vaughan: Will the Secretary of State explain his grounds for not including all vaccine-damaged children? What made him decide on 80 per cent. rather than 70 per cent. or 60 per cent.? I can

understand the difficulties over the assessment, but it would seem fairer if he included the whole range of children.

Mr. Ennals: That would bring in a very large number of children. I could not give the number of those involved if the level of disability were reduced to 20 per cent. It would be a very much larger number than at present. It would involve a much greater sum of public expenditure unless we were to pay to everyone, not on a graduated basis, a much smaller sum.
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's sugestion that those with a lesser disability may have greater need for help than those with a greater disability. I submit that it is the other way round. Those with the greatest disability pose the greatest problems for their families and perhaps need the support that this extra finance will bring them more than those with a lesser disability.
Because we were trying to bring in quickly a Bill that would also be simple and uncomplicated and not so costly that it would eat into other expenditure priorities, we decided that it should deal with the severely disabled. Obviously, we were waiting for the Pearson report before deciding what to do. When that report did not produce a simple solution, we had to do so. It is worth recalling that the Pearson proposals about strict liability in tort were also confined to cases of severe vaccine damage. So there is logic in what we are doing, although we have not reached conclusions on the main recommendation made by Pearson.
I doubt whether anyone would expect the scope of severe disablement to include someone who is only 20 per cent. disabled. I respect my hon. Friend's wishes to extend this scheme as widely as possible. In many respects, I would have liked to go along with him. The more families and disabled children we could help the better. But that approach would have substantially changed the nature of this simple Bill. I am sorry that I cannot accept my hon. Friend's proposal.

Dr. Vaughan: Is it the Secretary of State's intention to extend the scheme later to the lesser groups if more finance becomes available?

Mr. Ennals: I have never looked on this Bill as an interim measure, because "interim" means something leading to something else. We have not decided


what attitude we will take to the basic proposals in the Pearson Commission report. The hon. Gentleman will recall that during our debate in November, we looked at the possibility of introducing a disablement benefit that would start with children but might include adults, based on the severity of disablement regardless of the cause of that disability. This scheme could be regarded as an interim towards that possible solution. I have not entered into any commitment that the scope of this Bill will be changed at a later stage, but it is always open to the House so to decide in its wisdom.

Mr. Ashley: I am grateful for the kind words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and those of the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan). Despite their appreciation of my remarks, I would like to criticise what the hon. Member for Reading, South said. I understand that he is not prepared to support this amendment. As he remarked, the amendment is designed specifically to widen the number of people who would benefit.
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can therefore say that he does not support my effort to widen the categories and, at the same time, demand that the Government should widen them still more. He should either support my contention that more children should be included or say "We ain't having it." The hon. Gentleman is being contradictory.
I want every vaccine-damaged child to receive a payment. I chose the figure of 20 per cent. because of the precedent of the industrial injuries scheme. I go along with the idea that all children should be paid something. If I had the support of Conservative Members, I would vote against the Government because I believe in the amendment. I have no sense of rancour towards the Government, because I believe that they should be warmly congratulated on their splendid initiative. However, being deprived of the support of Conservative Members, I am helpless. I acknowledge that helplessness, but I will not accept the hon. Member for Reading, South criticising me.
The Secretary of State has won the battle. Good luck to him. He knows that I will come back again and again. The fault lies with Conservative Members

for failing to attack the Government as I have.
I did not touch upon the Pearson Commission report because I was watching your eyes, Mr. Murton, and I saw them glitter when hon. Members went slightly wide of the amendment. I propose to refer to the Pearson Commission on a later amendment and to press the Secretary of State about the report. I want a much wider scheme which includes not only a cash payment but a pension for vaccine-damaged children. I say that now just in case the hon. Member for Reading, South catches the early editions of tomorrow's newspapers and makes it appear that I am concerned only with the cash payment. I am not.
Once again, I offer my warm congratulations to the Secretary of State on bringing in the Bill but express my regret that he cannot accept the amendment. I shall press him later for a proper pension scheme for all vaccine-damaged children.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 2, leave out lines 24 to 26 and insert—
' (5) The Secretary of State shall not make an order or any regulations under this section unless a draft of the order or the regulations, as the case may be, shall have been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'
I wonder if it might be convenient for the Committee to deal with amendments Nos. 11 and 12 at the same time, as they deal with a similar point.

The Chairman: If the Committee has no objection, so be it.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Page: I am obliged to you, Mr. Murton. Amendment No. 7 deals with the powers of subordinate legislation granted by the Bill. It is a strange principle of our legislation that in almost every Bill—and this is no exception—we have to recognise the divine right of the Secretary of State to legislate without interference from Parliament.
In clause 1, the Secretary of State takes the power to add to the list of diseases for which the £10,000 payment may be made and takes to himself the right to prescribe the circumstances in which a


disease resulting from contact will also attract that payment.
Under clause 1(5), the Secretary of State's order will be subject to the annulment procedure in either House, but it is well nigh impossible to have a prayer debated on the Floor of the House. It is also most improbable that it will be debated in Committee, and, even if it is, the debate is completely ineffective.
We have here an example of ministerial arrogance in the seizure of power to legislate. Even the most modest, considerate, constitutional and coy Minister, such as, for example, the Minister with responsibility for the disabled, suddenly develops a lust for legislation when he has conduct of a Bill. The right hon. Gentleman is shaking his head, but I admit that I did that when I was in office. It is a practice when one is in office to try to seize the power to legislate. Various arguments are put forward in support of the Minister making an order that will not be considered by the House. He says, for example, "Leave it to me. It will be technical. We must be flexible. The gentlemen at the Elephant and Castle know best" and so on.
There are those who believe that it is right to legislate by passing a skeleton Bill in which Parliament merely expresses its intentions and either Ministers put flesh on it by statutory instruments or the courts do so by leading cases. The Secretary of State has partly subscribed to that principle in the Bill. There are six or seven instances of subordinate legislation being prescribed in the Bill and in all but one of those cases the orders are to be subject to the ineffective negative procedure.
The only exception appears in the first part of clause 2(6). I assume that, when the Secretary of State or his draftsmen got to that stage, they had a twinge of remorse and decided that they had better be seen not to be hogging it all to the Secretary of State. They therefore threw in an affirmative resolution procedure so that hon. Members would realise that they know that there is such a thing. I am not sure why that exception was chosen. There are other equally important provisions which are not subject to the affirmative procedure. I am particularly concerned about those included in

my amendment because some of the others are not so important. The regulations under clauses 4 and 5 are procedural and are quite appropriate for the negative procedure.
I suppose that in making that assertion I am writing my own rules about what orders should be subject to the affirmative procedure and which should be subject to the negative procedure. It is a pity that we have no specific rules on which Ministers may judge, when instructing their parliamentary draftsmen, whether an order should be under the affirmative or the negative procedure. One can be excused for thinking that frequently the only criterion is the expediency of the Government Department involved.
I think that it will be generally accepted that when a Bill has as its foundation a carefully compiled list of circumstances—in this case a list of diseases—and empowers the Secretary of State to add to the list, the addition to the statute should be through affirmative resolutions in both Houses. We see in the list of diseases the foundation of the Bill. If further diseases are added, we shall be adding further foundation stones on which the structure of the Bill is to be erected. This is a case in which Parliament should be ensured of the opportunity of a debate, an assurance which it does not get through the negative procedure being put into the Bill.
There is another reason why an order under clause 1 should be subject to the affirmative procedure. If one adds to the list of diseases, one adds to the liability of the taxpayer, through the Exchequer, to make these payments. By the addition of a disease there will be an additional burden on the public purse and that, again, should come before Parliament under the affirmative procedure. The same considerations apply to the regulations under subsection (2), the circumstances where the development of a disease occurs by contact. There, again, an order will add to the basis of the Bill, the diseases upon which it is based and the circumstances under which those diseases will attract payment; and it will add to the liability of the Exchequer to meet those payments.
I will briefly fit amendments Nos. 11 and 12 into my argument. In clause 2(2)


there is provision for modifying the conditions of entitlement when a new disease is added to the list. As I understand it, that modification can be done only in an order adding a new disease to the list. Then in subsection (4) there is provision for either a reduction of or an addition to the conditions of entitlement. In subsection (6) there is a provision that, if it is an addition, the order must be under the affirmative procedure, while if it is a reduction of the conditions it must be by negative procedure. But the modifying conditions must be contained in an order adding a disease to the list. Therefore, on the argument which I have put in connection with clause 1, they should all be under the affirmative procedure; all the more so if they reduce the conditions of entitlement, because such a reduction increases the number of occasions on which payment has to be made, and so increases the liability on the public purse. On that ground alone, they should come before the House under the affirmative procedure.

Mr. Robin Hodgson: I rise to support wholeheartedly what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). The negative procedure is entirely unsatisfactory. We have just had a long and most interesting debate about the Porton Down laboratory. where one of the most exciting prospects for the laboratory is in the field of genetic manipulation. We had some health and safety genetic manipulation regulations produced before a Statutory Instruments Committee last summer. On Wednesday 26 July they were voted down by nine to one, with only the Minister's colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science voting in favour. Ten minutes ago his colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security proudly said that these regulations came into force on 1 August last. It was clearly the wish of the House, by nine to one, that those regulations should not be made; but they were made. Therefore, the negative procedure is not worth the paper it is written on.
I thoroughly support what my right hon. Friend has said and I cannot too strongly express the view that to use anything other than the affirmative method means that the House is powerless and that we have handed cheque, pen and blotter to

the Minister to do whatever he wants in the future.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): While I well understand the desire of the right hon. Gentleman to ensure that there is effective parliamentary control over subordinate legislation, I believe the forms of control, or the instruments mentioned in clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill as drafted, strike a correct balance. Moreover, I hope that on reflection, after I have replied, the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me. Meanwhile, I know that he will accept that as an author on the subject I have a very keen and personal interest in parliamentary scrutiny and control.
As the Committee knows, this Bill is concerned with a very limited number of payments. Initially, as we say in the explanatory memorandum, we are concerned with perhaps about 600 cases in respect of 30 years of vaccination, and thereafter with a handful of cases each year. The provisions in the Bill for modifying the scope of the payments scheme by statutory instrument are in practice unlikely to have any substantial effect on the number of payments either way.
The main reason for including these provisions to enable modifications to be made by order is that the Bill's general object is to provide for payments in respect of disablement which is due to vaccinations carried out in the course of the routine public policy immunisation programme. That programme is not contained in any statutory document. It is determined by Ministers in the light of the advice of the appropriate advisory body, namely the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.
With a vaccine damage payment scheme on the statute book, the Committee would surely expect that, if and when a new disease was added to the immunisation schedule, it should be covered by the payments scheme as soon as possible. The view we have taken, therefore, is that it is not necessary to apply the affirmative resolution procedure to the process of adding a further disease to the list in clause 1(2), or to any modifications of the conditions in clause 2(1).
The Bill, however, provides that if an order is made which is restrictive, either


by specifying the date at which a particular vaccination is no longer within the scope of the scheme or by proposing other more limiting conditions than are at present in the Bill, for example, as to the maximum age at the date of vaccination, the affirmative procedure has to be used before such an order comes into effect. We believe that this is the right approach, as I will try to show in more detail.
The right hon. Gentleman's amendment would make two changes in parliamentary control over statutory instruments under clause 1. First, it would replace the existing subsection, which applies the negative procedure to orders under subsection (2) (i), extending the scope of the Act to any additional diseases for which public policy vaccinations might be provided in the future, by a provision requiring the affirmative procedure. Secondly, it would apply the affirmative procedure to regulations under subsection (3) which would define the circumstances in which payment could be made to a person disabled as a result of contact with a vaccinated person. Such regulations, as the Bill stands, are subject to the negative procedure by virtue of the general provisions in clause 8(2)(a) of the Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman has argued that subordinate legislation on these two matters amounts to an extension of the scope of the vaccine damage payments scheme and that it should thus be subject to express parliamentary control. The two provisions are, however, of very different weight. In practice, orders under subsection (2)(i) would be made only if at some future date the Government decide, on the advice of the appropriate advisory body, to extend the scope of routine public policy vaccination to additional diseases. As such a change does not happen very often, when it does occur the decision will, in any case, receive public attention, both as a matter of health policy and as a matter of additional Government expenditure, and it would be announced in circulars to the medical profession and in leaflets.
Once it had been decided that vaccination against some new disease was the best course, there would seem to be little room for argument that provision for payments under the Bill should be made in

respect of damage arising from such vaccinations as for all other diseases subject to the vaccination programme. There seems to be no real argument for making the decision to provide such payments subject to affirmative procedure when the decision to give the vaccination itself would not be subject to such procedure.
7.0 p.m.
The provision about contact damage in clause 1(3) is of a different character. The Bill is so drafted that the provision about contact damage is ineffective unless regulations are made as to the circumstances in which contact damage is to qualify for payment. It will be necessary, therefore, to make regulations under this provision before any payment can be made. We do not at present know whether a payment will fall to be made under this provision, but, if there is a case, the circumstances will have to be very minutely defined. This is the reason for not having the details in the Bill but providing for them to be laid down in regulations and, given the specific and beneficial and rare nature of the contingency to be covered, there is in our view no case for an affirmative resolution procedure by any of the normal criteria.
I ought to add that I think that the amendment is in any case technically defective, in that the inclusion in the right hon. Gentleman's proposed new subsection (5) of the method of parliamentary control over regulations under subsection (3) conflicts with the general provision as to regulations contained in clause 8(2).
I turn to amendments nos. 11 and 12. These two amendments would substitute control by the affirmative procedure for control by the negative procedure over orders under clause 2(4)(a) —that is to say, orders which provided that one or more of the conditions of entitlement set out in subsection (1) of that clause need not be fulfilled.
Subsection (1) contains the basic conditions for entitlement, as to vaccination in the United Kingdom and within certain dates, and under the age of 18—except in the case of rubella or poliomyelitis, or in cases of vaccination at the time of an outbreak. It also contains the requirement that the disabled person was over two at the time of the claim or at the date of death. The Bill enables these provisions to be amended


by statutory instrument. Any instrument which made the conditions more restrictive would already be subject to the affirmative resolution as the Bill stands. The right hon. Gentleman's amendments would ensure that no modification whatever could be made without an affirmative resolution.
All these provisions are in the Bill, as I have already said, so as to enable minor modifications to be made if, for example, because of changes in vaccination policy, the present conditions are found to be inappropriate. If one of the listed diseases ceased to be in the routine public policy programme, it would no doubt be appropriate to introduce a new provision terminating cover in respect of that disease from a current date as is done in the Bill from 1 August 1971 in the case of smallpox. This would, as I have said, require the affirmative procedure under the Bill as it stands. On the other hand, if the vaccination programme was extended to cover vaccination over the age of 18 in cases other than rubella or poliomyelitis, a relaxation of the provisions in the Bill would be likely to be appropriate, and, as this would be an entirely beneficial move, the need for an affirmative procedure is not in our view really apparent.
If it is necessary to make an order so as to provide for any case where smallpox vaccination has been administered since 1 August 1971 in the course of an outbreak of that disease, this would again be a specific provision which would need to be precisely defined in the order and which would affect only a very small number of cases, beneficially. It does not seem to the Government appropriate to make such an order subject to the affirmative procedure.
I trust that, in the light of this detailed explanation, the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee will accept that we have struck the right balance, in all the circumstances, in terms of the proper degree of parliamentary control, which the right hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned to effect. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to ask leave to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation of the

negative procedure in respect of the power to make additions to the list of diseases in clause 1.
However, the Minister based his whole argument on the fact that there will be an addition to that list of diseases only if there is an extension of routine vaccination. That is nowhere to be found in the Bill. No court considering the validity of an order under the Bill would look to the Minister's words to see whether that was the intention of the Minister in the Bill as drafted. We must examine the Bill as it stands, and as it stands any disease could be added to that list.
If it is a disease to which the routine vaccination is applied, that itself is a controversial issue. Surely the Minister realises that vaccination is still a controversial issue. There are many who believe—and who would certainly believe if it were extended in some other way to some other disease—that it should not be extended. They would wish the matter to be fully debated by their parliamentary representatives. It is an example of a case in which the affirmative procedure should ensure debate.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) accused the Conservative Party of not supporting him on a previous amendment. I accuse Labour Back Benchers of not supporting the control of Parliament over the Executive. This is a typical case in which there is no need to deny Parliament the right to debate this matter on an affirmative resolution.
I am surprised that the Minister, as the author of a very good book on the control of Parliament over the Executive, could stand at the Dispatch Box and advance the arguments he did. He said that such orders would be detailed and would apply to only a few people. However, they may be controversial and may be precedents for something very much bigger, even though they may apply to only small cases.
I said earlier that we so often hear the argument that certain orders will he technical, suggesting that the House will not understand them and that only a Minister can fathom them. That is what I meant by arrogance in the lust for legislative power without the interference


of Parliament. I am sure that the Minister has no such thing in his character because he is not that sort of Minister. He is a considerate man and has always had great respect for Parliament and four our control over the Executive.
The Minister said that the amendment was technically wrong because it did not comply with a later provision in the Bill. That does not make an amendment technically wrong. A later clause can be amended, if necessary. It only means that one has to insert in the later clause an exception relating to this amendment.
However, I cannot press this matter, because of what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South said earlier. He accused my side of the Committee, and I now accuse his side of not supporting me in seeking more control by Parliament over the Executive.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) for his kindly reference to my work in approaching the important subject of parliamentary control. I did not intend to chastise him for the defects of one of his amendments. I know that his concern is to bolster parliamentary control. The right hon. Gentleman knows my interest in this subject. I have suffered no change of view since I was an Opposition Member, nor will I experience any embarrassment in re-examining the book which was mentioned earlier.
Parliamentarians from both sides of the House contributed to that work. All of us, along with the right hon. Member for Crosby, are rightly concerned to protect parliamentary scrutiny and control. If there is no public health vaccination programme, there will be no vaccination. Hence, there will be no damage in the first place. That essential point must be considered. In our argument tonight, I hope that the right hon. Member for Crosby will accept that I was attempting to give a full and reasonable reply, and that he will now agree to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Dr. Vaughan: We Conservatives have made it quite clear that we strongly support the intentions of the Bill and, there-

fore, we are happy to support clause 1. I think that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) knows that perfectly well. We have consistently said that all cases of vaccine damage should be compensated. I do not think that the hon. Member was doing us justice when he used us as an excuse for not putting his amendments to a vote. The point that we were trying to make was that if this is not to be compensation but is to be a token recognition of damage, in justice perhaps it should be extended to include all cases of vaccine damage. That is surely something on which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South would support us.

Mr. Ashley: I am very happy to rise to that point, Mr. Murton. Of course, I would have pursued this matter to the vote had I had support from the Conservative Benches. I feel that all vaccine-damaged children sould have been compensated, and I chose the 20 per cent. level in my amendment because this was a precedent in a scheme which could be followed.
I was staggered when I learnt that the Conservatives were not voting against the Government. If I now vote, I vote alone, and I do not believe in silly and unnecessary gestures. I do not believe in gesture politics. Let me couple with that my pleasure in this clause standing part of the Bill. I am delighted to support clause 1.
Every time I criticise the Government, I do not want it to be taken in isolation. I congratulate the Government on registering this clause, but on the question of voting for my amendment the fault lies with the Conservatives. Had they beeen prepared to vote against the Government on my amendment, I should have voted against my own Government on all my amendments. They are very small things, which do not attack the Bill as such. I think that the Bill is splendid, and I am delighted that it has been brought forward.
I do not want to be drawn into a general condemnation of the Bill. I shall keep on pressing that point, because I want to emphasise it and make it very clear that I believe that it is a splendid Bill. My amendments are very small. It so happens that they affect a very small number of people. None of us knows how


many people are damaged less than 80 per cent. My right hon. Friend the secretary of State said that he did not know, and I accept that. None of us know. I am simply trying to do what I believe to be right, and I know that my right hon. Friend respects that.
I am not being awkward with the hon. Member for Reading, south (Dr. Vaughan), who has rendered very fine work for disabled people, but I am making it very clear that had I been supported by the conservative Opposition I would most certainly have voted for my own amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: I was teased mercilessly by a previous Speaker of the House for arguing, on one occasion, that a comma was in the wrong place, As a matter of fact, a new order had to be brought in later to put the comma in the right place. I defy being teased on this occasion by referring to line 24 on page 2, where subsection (2)(i)—little Roman (i)—is mentioned. What it obviously means is subsection (2)(i)— italicised (i). It is used again in the next clause. I hope that the printer will take note that at the moment that line is nonsense and that it really should refer to an (i)not (i).

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Ennals: I did not quite follow the argument about "italicised (i") and the "Roman (i)", but no doubt Hansard will, and attention will be paid to the extremely important point that the right hon. Gentleman has raised.
I do not want to take long replying to this short debate on clause stand part. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) referred to gesture politics. We get a lot of gesture politics these days, but the Bill is not gesture politics; it is a decision to make provision which probably should have been provided long ago, which we finally decided should be dealt with effectively.
I listened to the interesting exchange about my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South feeling alone and wishing to have Conservative support, and the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) feeling alone and wishing to have Labour support, and I do not want to intervene in the argument between them. amendment in order to complicate the

But I did find a certain element of hypocrisy in the position of the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan). I very rarely criticise him. He has the fascinating habit, every week—it is usually on a Friday—of demanding my resignation. It is most amusing. He says the warmest and most friendly things, thinks that I am doing a marvellous job and bringing forward exactly the right legislation, but his weekend speeches are empty except for one phrase, which demands my resignation or my sacking, as the case may be.
Returning to the subject to which I was referring, there was a certain element of hypocrisy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, south said. The hon. Member for Reading, South said that we really ought to be dealing with far more children, although he did not table saying that we should being under the provisions of the Bill far more children who are disabled as a result of vaccine damage, he is intending one of two consequences. Either he is suggesting that they should be paid much less than we are offering to pay, or he has another new proposal to add to the list of additional public expenditure. He has not made it quite clear what the situation is. That is the element of hypocrisy in this matter. But I do not want him to resign. I wish him to continue in his Opposition role as long as time permits.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill

Clause 2

CONDITIONS OF ENTITLEMENT

Mr. Robert Boscawen(Wells): I beg to move amendment no. 8, in page 2, line 30, after "Man", insert
'or any other territory which is still administered by Her Majesty's Government'.

The Chirman: With this we may take amendment no. 10, in page 3, line 25, after "forces", insert
'or others persons serving overseas in the employment of Her Majesty's Government'

Mr. Boscawen: These amendments are slight additions to the entitlements in this clause. I am not putting forward this amendment in order to complicate the Bill in any way. As my hon. Friend the


Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) said, we wish to see it go through and not be held up by unnecessary complications. I believe that in Committee we should try to avoid, as far as possible, any marginally difficult cases. There may be a few, unless we hear an explanation as to exactly who is covered by clause 2.
The first amendment refers to a vaccination carried out in the United Kingdom or the Isle of Man. In addition, we feel that we should consider those areas where the United Kingdom is responsible for the administration.
Many people will ask where we are responsible for administration outside the United Kingdom. I do not know exactly our responsibilities in the Channel Islands, for example, but I feel that the Minister should tell us whether the Channel Islands would be included should the vaccination of a child take place there. Large numbers of children from this country go there on holiday and may need something like a tetanus vaccination. I would not feel that places such as Gibraltar were within the administration of the United Kingdom, but if this amendment were included they might be. Therefore, I should like an explanation as to where outside the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man this would apply.
For example, what about the sovereign base areas in Cyprus? Children of civilians serving on those bases might have to be included or might not. What about British ships at sea? This is an important point. It may well be covered in the orders that are to be brought forward, but we need an explanation about this. Surely this is a matter of importance, because large numbers of children come to this country and could be vaccinated en route. We feel that that ought to be cleared up at this stage.
We are glad that vaccinations on members of the families of serving members of Her Majesty's forces are included in the Bill. But we feel that it does not go quite far enough and that it should include others serving on Her Majesty's service overseas. For example, many civilians carry out jobs with BAOR. Of course, there are individuals working in our foreign and colonial service. All these people may have children who are vac-

cinated within the meaning of the Bill—that is, in accordance with routine policy vaccination programmes in this country. We would like an explanation in this regard.
There is another category which is not strictly within the wording of the amendment. I should like the Minister to confirm whether vaccination for diseases carried out in this country, because they are the public policy of other territories overseas, are to be included. I take it that they are. If it is the public policy of this country it will be included. But what happens if a child is vaccinated in the United Kingdom and then goes abroad with his parents for the next 10 years or so? Would that situation also be covered? I think that we need an explanation in this regard. There may not be many cases, but I am sure that we want to avoid any hard cases at this stage.
Not on this list of diseases are those other diseases for which vaccinations may take place at airports for those travelling overseas under the aegis of the Ministry of Overseas Development. It could not necessarily be said that such people were vaccinated for any of those diseases because of public policy in this country. Nevertheless, they will be returning to this country after a few years. I want to be sure that these marginal cases are dealt with under the Bill, and I hope that we shall have a full explanation.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) referred to the likelihood of a misprint in clause 1. However, amendment No. 8 appears to contain a misprint. Presumably it should open with the words "man or any other".
Amendment No. 8 is designed to extend eligibility for payment under the Bill to persons vaccinated outside the United Kingdom and Isle of Man in places administered by the Government. This amendment would unacceptably widen and complicate the scheme, which is, after all, designed to provide a measure of speedy relief to people severely disabled as a result of routine public policy vaccination programmes.
It is not clear to which territories this would apply. Dependent territories have their own health arrangements, and they are sometimes very different from ours. They might have routine vaccination programmes which differ appreciably from


ours. In any case, it would be far more appropriate for them to make provision about such arrangements in their own legislation and to finance them out of their own funds. I have no doubt that there will be a great deal of international interest in the scheme for which we are legislating.
We have, by arrangement with the Manx authorities, included provision for any Isle of Man cases, as its national health service is very similar to ours. But, by administrative arrangement, the cost will fall on Isle of Man funds. The hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) asked about the position in the Channel Islands. We have kept the authorities there in touch with our arrangements. It will be for them to decide whether to introduce a corresponding scheme and, of course, to finance it. I am advised that we have checked with the Jersey authorities and that they know of no cases there.
I turn now to amendment no. 10. Under this amendment, the provision in the clause for coverage for members of Her Majesty's forces and their children when overseas would extend to other Government employees overseas and their children.
The general intention of the Bill is to provide payments in respect of vaccinations which are part of the United Kingdom Government's routine public policy vaccination programmes. In general, vaccinations overseas do not form part of such programmes. Such vaccinations take place in accordance with the public vaccination programmes of the country in question. We have made an exception in the case of Her Majesty's forces and their families because, in some countries, substantial numbers of forces' families are provided with these services by the Ministry of Defence as, in effect, an extension overseas of the National Health Service.
The position with other Government employees is very different, and we do not think it would be appropriate in this Bill to make provision to cover vaccination of such employees or their children overseas. For one thing, I am not sure how one could defend the provision of cover for such cases without also doing so for other civilians from this country who happened to be abroad because of their employment.
Again, in the case of vaccination of members of the forces overseas, there will be adequate records within Government control to consult. This would not be the case with children of civilian employees, and the extension to cover such cases would be a further complication of the scheme. I must again say that this Bill is intended to make provision for a simple scheme which can be used to bring help to a limited number of beneficiaries quite rapidly.
There will be no routine vaccinations of children on board ship. Members of the forces serving in the sovereign bases in Cyprus will be covered under clause 2(5) If a vaccination takes place in the United Kingdom, it is covered provided always that it is for one of the listed diseases. I hope that I have explained why we are proceeding in the way that has been suggested, and I hope that having heard my reply the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Boscawen: There are still several points about which I am not clear. We are told that no routine vaccinations are taking place on British ships at sea. That may well be, but there could be. For example, if a ship enters a harbour where there is a measles epidemic it may be called upon to vaccinate the children. I believe that that is a matter which ought to be looked at again.
There is also the question of tetanus. A tetanus inoculation is something that might be given following an accident on board ship. That is not necessarily a routine inoculation. But if following an accident an anti-tetanus inoculation was given in this country it would presumably be covered, because one could not distinguish between that and a routine inoculation. I believe that it would be very difficult to discriminate between the two.
7.30 p.m.
I turn to the problem of civilian families in Government service overseas. I am not happy that they should be excluded, particularly those civilians serving with the forces. If the child of such a person suffered as a result of a vaccination, it would be regarded as a hard case and that person's Member of Parliament would be the first to come to the House and plead.

Mr. Ernest G. Perry: I am perturbed about what the Minister has said in this respect. There are a large number of Service men and many staff in Gibraltar who have families and children. Would they be covered by the Bill?

Mr. Boscawen: I did not fully understand the Minister when he said that there would be no records of such people. Surely they would have the same records as civilians in this country. I am mystified about that.
I do not wish to hold up the Bill or to complicate it. We are trying to avoid as far as possible the marginal, hard cases. There might be only one or two such cases. I hope that the Minister will consider my arguments. Perhaps at a later stage in the Bill he will consider whether the points that have been made should be put into effect. If the Minister were willing to do that, I should be willing to withdraw the amendment.

Dr. Vaughan: My hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) has raised an important matter. Not only are the Services involved but so also are the diplomatic service, Ministry people and a host of professional people who have been sent abroad as consultants in the medical and engineering spheres. They often take their families with them. I urge the Minister to consider this matter because such families may not know how the Bill affects them.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I appreciate the solicitude of the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) in referring to the borderline cases. When I mentioned vaccinations for children aboard ship I emphasised the word "routine". The hon. Member will appreciate that I was not suggesting that there could never be a vaccination aboard ship. On the contrary, I was emphasising that there would be no "routine" vaccinations of children in such circumstances.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Perry) asked me about Gibraltar. Gibraltar has its own public health policies. In my reply to the hon. Member for Wells I spelt out that even dependent territories have their own health arrangements, which are sometimes different from ours.
I shall consider what has been said. The hon. Member for Wells takes a keen,

genuine and sustained interest in all matters that affect disabled people. But I hope that he will agree that I have tried to answer as fully as possible the points that have been at issue in this short debate.

Mr. Boscawen: Because of the assurance by the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Ashley: I beg to move amendment no. 9, in page 2, leave out line 31.
I do not propose to detain the Committee for long. The amendment aims to pay children or families of children who were damaged before 1948. A small number will be involved because that is a long time ago and that was in the early days of vaccination.
I appreciate the difficulties facing the Secretary of State. The National Health Service began only at about that date. I presume that the Government recommended vaccination as a public policy as a routine procedure at about that date. I appreciate that it will be difficult after all this time to categorise cases of vaccine damage.
Nevertheless, I assume that Ministers and doctors were recommending vaccination at that time in the interests of the community as well as in the interests of the children. If that is so and if the basis of the Bill is that the families of vaccine-damaged children should receive a payment because they were damaged in the interests of the community, it is reasonable to include the group of people covered by the amendment.
I hope that the Government will recognise that the principle is exactly the same —that those damaged before that period in the interests of the community and by vaccination which was recommended by Ministers and doctors should receive the payment.
The hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) rightly said that we should seek to avoid marginal cases and to lean over backwards to help them. That is the right spirit for this debate. My amendment fits that category. I hope the Government will deal sympathetically with this small group of people. If the Government are not able to accept the amendment now, I hope that they will bear in


mind what has been said and consider including this group of people in the Bill.

Mr. Ennals: I am sorry that I shall have to turn down my hon. Friend once again. Not many people are likely to be affected by his amendment. It would make little difference to the number of payments under the Bill, but it would lead to substantial practical difficulties. It would be very difficult to investigate today the circumstances of disablement arising 30, 40 or 50 years ago. One might have regarded such problems as so daunting that the Bill would not have been introduced.
Producing a link between a disability and a vaccination is difficult when it involves a vaccination which was given 10 years ago, let alone 30 years ago. That is one of the difficulties involved in fulfilling the terms of the Bill. Medical records are usually destroyed after 20 or 25 years.
We take the view that equitable determination of claims on the balance of probability—that is what we are having to do—dating back before the National Health Service started would raise major problems and lead to delays that could possibly hold up payments. There has to be a dividing line somewhere, and the logical dividing line seemed to be when the NHS started. It is not right to say that there was no public policy before its formation. For example, the smallpox vaccination policy was in operation before the NHS started. I am certain that there are many other examples, but I am not an expert on those days.
Basically this is a scheme to provide help for families with disabled children. Any pre-1948 victims are now over 30 years of age. Although some of them are probably still with their families, they qualify for social security and social service provisions for disabled adults. Most of them will be receiving the attendance allowance, mobility allowance and the non-contributory invalidity pension. Some of them, if they do not have other resources, may be eligible for supplementary benefit. Their needs are not ignored. To bring them into the scheme under the Bill would cause a great deal of difficulty. It would be time-consuming and it would be for what I reckon to be a small number.

Mr. Ashley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Ashley: I beg to move amendment no. 13, in clause 2, page 2, line 42, leave out from 'he' to 'was'.
This is yet another attempt to extend the provisions of the Bill. If there is a case, as is recognised in the Bill, for paying the family of a child when the child has died, the date when the child died should not make any difference; it is utterly irrelevant.
The Bill is, rightly, a retrospective measure. I know that the House does not often like retrospective legislation. On the whole the House is right to avoid it. However, the Bill is retrospective in the sense that we are paying children who were damaged before the decision to pay was taken by the Government. I applaud the sentiment that is embraced in the Bill. I see no logic in excluding children who died earlier. The case for paying the families of those children is exactly the same as the case for paying the families of children who died after 9 May 1978.
The Bill specifically provides for the payment to families whose children died after 9 May 1978. A false distinction is being made. I assume that the Government will feel that it is necessary to retain the word that I am seeking to delete and to exclude the category that I am seeking to include because of the difficulty of dealing with the claims of those who died before the scheme was announced. However, the Government have a responsibility to outline the difficulties whatever they may be. I hope that my right hon. Friend will feel able to deal sympathetically with the sentiment.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The amendment would extend the provisions of the Bill to cover persons who died when over two years of age notwithstanding how long ago they died. In considering its effects, together with the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) in an earlier amendment to remove the condition of vaccination after 5 July 1948, let me say that it would authorise payments to the heirs of


persons who died a long time ago. Unfortunately a dividing line must be set somewhere. The Government have set it at 9 May 1978. That was the date on which my right hon. Friend announced the scheme. To have to assess now whether someone who died some years ago was 80 per cent. or more disabled and, if so, to have to determine the cause would be extremely difficult in practice.
The other problem is that to provide for payment now to the legal personal representatives of such persons would be to introduce a compensation scheme. As my hon. Friend knows, we have said all along that the Bill is not to provide compensation but to introduce a measure of speedy relief for the severely disabled and their families.
Payment in respect of those who have died is included in the Bill only because the Government feel that the scheme should start straight away on 9 May. The Government feel that no one should lose because of delays in the system of dealing with claims. To provide for payment in respect of those who died before the scheme was formally announced would, in the Government's view, change its nature.
I much appreciate and understand my hon. Friend's feelings for parents who coped, for perhaps a long time, with a severely disabled child and who have suffered the loss of the child. Our central difficulty is that the Bill has not been introduced to provide compensation for such families. Its intention is to provide current help. Nothing gives me less pleasure—indeed, more pain—than being unable to go along with a suggestion from my hon. Friend. As my right hon. Friend has said, he has performed an immense service on behalf of vaccine-damaged children and others in campaigning for the Bill. Without his work, in association with that of Mrs. Fox, it would not have been posisble to make so much progress over the past years.
I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to accept the distinction that I have made and that the Bill makes and will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Ashley: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's reply. I recognise that there would be some practical difficulties, but I do not think that they would be so

great that they could not be overcome by the Goverenment. I do not believe that the provisions of the Bill would necessarily result in a compensation scheme by extending them further. That does not follow. The line being drawn at 1978 is unduly restrictive. However, I appreciate my right hon. Friend's argument. I also appreciate his generous words. I hope that the comments that I have made during the debate will be borne in mind in future.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Graham Page: I am puzzled by one small provision in subsection (5) that refers to
serving members of Her Majesty's forces".
Why does the subsection provide that the regulations may define those who are
serving members of Her Majesty's forces"?
Why should there be that simple reference to members of Her Majesty's forces? Is there some intention in the regulations to distinguish between officers and other ranks so that officers shall be serving members and not other ranks?
The wording is peculiar. It seems to give the Secretary of State power to select certain people from the Armed Forces, perhaps airmen but not soldiers, perhaps naval men but not airmen. I do not know why these strange words appear. Why cannot we use the words "regulations relating to serving members of Her Majesty's forces"?

Mr. Alfred Morris: The right hon. Gentleman may be assured that there is no evil intent. It is not our intention to discriminate in favour of officers and against other ranks.
The right hon. Gentleman said earlier that arrogance was displayed by those on the Treasury Bench. I hope that I have acquitted my right hon. Friend and other colleagues from that charge.
Certain people do not form part of the forces but are extra to them. I shall be in touch with the right hon. Gentleman. My best course is to give him a considered answer to his point. He is a great expert at looking for difficulties in the wording of Bills and other parliamentary


papers. He may be assured that I shall be in touch with him on his point as soon as possible.

Mr. Graham Page: Mine was not just a niggling point. When we consider the regulations, we must take into account their validity and whether they give the Secretary of State the power he appears to be taking if he makes a regulation. If, in this case, he wishes to make a regulation making a selection between serving members of Her Majesty's forces, as I read the subsection he would have the right to do that. I am sure that the House would not wish to give the Secretary of State the power to distinguish between different members of the Armed Forces under these circumstances. I think that the Minister should look at the point in this way. Does he need to have those words included? Will not the words
persons defined in the regulations as serving members
cause confusion? Would it not be simpler to use the expression "serving members of Her Majesty's forces"?

Mr. Boscawen: Does my right hon. Friend have in mind the serving members of the Gurkha regiment? They may not necessarily be British subjects at birth or when vaccinated. Their children may not be British subjects. There are complications. Perhaps my right hon. Friend has those in mind.

Mr. Page: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving specific examples. We must clear up this matter so as to know what is the intention behind the wording dealing with the Secretary of State's power to make regulations.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I am advised that there is a need for these words and that parliamentary counsel gave careful attention to the drafting of this part of the Bill.
I said that I was prepared to be in touch with the right hon. Gentleman to set his mind at rest. I have the impression that he is not half as worried about the competence of parliamentary draftsmen as we perhaps feared. I shall be in touch with him at the earliest possible date.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

DETERMINATION OF CLAIMS

Dr. Vaughan: I beg to move amendment no. 14, in page 4, line 31, leave out
'on the balance of probability'
and insert
'as if the balance of doubt were in favour of the claimant'
The amendment seeks to ensure that where there is a doubt the benefit of the doubt is given to the patient or claimant.
This is a probing amendment. We understand that some assessments have already been started. We should like to know how many cases have already been seen and how the balance of probability is being interpreted. The Secretary of State said in a previous debate that an assessment was being made according to well-established social security principles. We should like the Minister to tell us a little more about these well-established principles and how they are being applied to these cases.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The hon. Gentleman said that this was a probing amendment. The substitution of the phrase "balance of doubt" for "balance of probability" would not seem to make a great deal of difference to the effect of this clause, yet it seriously obscures the meaning.
On Second Reading many hon. Members said that we should be giving claimants the "benefit of the doubt". That is a different proposition from that in the amendment. I am not sure what the concept "benefit of doubt" means. It might mean that in cases where it could be shown that a disabled person had been vaccinated at any time prior to the onset of disablement, and that some other cause for his disablement could not be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, the disabled person would be automatically eligible for payment. If that is what it means, such a provision would completely transform the scheme and undermine its basis.
In the Second Reading debate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the report of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation to the effect that although it was likely that some brain damage was caused by vaccination, there was no way of distinguishing such damage from damage caused by


febrile convulsions unconnected with vaccination, which occurred naturally. That is why the Government decided that claims should be determined on the balance of probabilities. It seems reasonable and possible to do that within the general intention of the scheme.
The hon. Gentleman has had a great deal of personal experience in this area. He worked in the service of thalidomide children over many years. I understand his anxiety to make certain that we do whatever we can to help the individual. I hope, from what I have said, that he will appreciate that that is our intention. I trust that he will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Dr. Vaughan: I am grateful for that explanation. Will the Minister answer my question? Are we correct in understanding that some assessments have already been started? Will he tell us how many of these cases have been seen and how the balance of probability is turning out in the cases which have already been assessed? Perhaps there have been no difficulties. Perhaps the matter is going forward straightforwardly. We thought that this was an appropriate moment at which to ask about this matter.

Mr. Morris: We gave a great deal of information on Second Reading about the way in which the scheme was progressing. I may now give the Committee further information. About 400 cases have received a preliminary medical scrutiny. So far, the decisions that awards are due have been reached in 70 cases. That is the information sought by the hon. Gentleman. We shall naturally keep the House informed of developments as soon as possible.

Dr. Vaughan: Have any of those cases yet received any payment? I presume not, as we are only now considering the Bill. Will the Minister give us some idea how long it will be before those concerned receive payments?

Mr. Morris: Mr. Morris I commented on Second Reading on the question whether any payment had yet been made. The answer is that we have not yet paid an amount to any beneficiary. I am in difficulty in attempting to give precise information about timing. My best response is to say that we shall proceed as quickly as we can.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: Perhaps the Minister would look carefully at the amendment in relation to the words at the beginning of clause 1:
If, on consideration of a claim, the Secretary of State is satisfied".
On the face of it, the payment can be made only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person is
severely disabled as a result of vaccination against any of the diseases to which this Act applies".
But if the Secretary of State says that he is satisfied about the conditions, there is no argument. It is final and absolute.
That does not seem quite to accord with clause 3(5), which speaks of "the balance of probability". There seems to be a mixture of ideas. First, it is said that the Secretary of State has to be satisfied. Then it is said that he has to be satisfied only on the balance of probabilities. I think there will be terrible confusion in trying to apply subsection (5) as now worded. I can understand the very wise intention to try to cope with the position where it is not quite certain whether the disability is entirely due to vaccination. I do not think that the draftsman has got it right yet, especially in regard to the basis of the Bill, which is that the Secretary of State has to be satisfied. If he is not satisfied, he can refer the matter to a tribunal, and the tribunal then has to be satisfied. I do not know how best the question of balance of probability can be fitted in with that. I fear that it will cause a lot of difficulty and needs to be looked at again.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The right hon. Gentleman is concerned about the phrase "balance of probability". I have said that we are concerned that the alternative suggested could seriously obscure the meaning. He can rest assured that we shall want to look very carefully at any difficulty that might arise. I ask him to bear in mind that we are breaking new ground here. We are making no exaggerated claims about our so doing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) has made clear, as has the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan), that many people would like us to go very much further. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept that there are difficulties


involved in breaking new ground. We think that the course we are taking is the best one in all the circumstances. Subsection (5) deals only with the criterion of severe disablement resulting, on the balance of probability, from vaccination. Everything that the right hon. Gentleman has said will be considered.
I hope that, against the background of my reply, the hon. Member for Reading, South will agree to ask leave to withdraw his amendment.

Dr. Vaughan: In view of the Minister's statement and assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Boscawen: I hope that the Minister will clear up the question of appeal against the refusal to meet a claim. As I see it, the disabled person has—or the parents of the disabled person have—a right to appeal to the independent medical tribunal where he believes that a decision on the ground that the cause of the disablement did not result from vaccination is incorrect. He has no right of appeal, I understand, where the claim fails because the conditions of clause 2 are not fulfilled. That is as I understand the position from the explanatory document. Perhaps the Minister would clarify that.
Earlier in the debate we were discussing these very matters, where there might be arguments over clause 2 on the question of qualifications, such as the residence of the individual, the occupation of the individual at the time of the vaccination, and so on. Under clause 3(4), as the explanatory document points out, there would be no right of appeal from the Secretary of State's decision where a claim failed because the conditions in clause 2 were not met.
It would be very strange if there were to be no right of appeal on that ground. Perhaps there is a right of appeal to another body. I can understand that the right of appeal may not necessarily be to the independent medical tribunal because it is not a medical matter and is really an appeal against the facts of the case, to determine where a person was vaccinated, the age of the person, and so on.
I should like to have that matter cleared up before we leave clause 3.

Mr. Ennals: Clause 4 provides for the appointment of independent medical tribunals, and the review cases can be referred to them following a notice by the Secretary of State to the effect that he is not satisfied that the conditions as to severity of disablement or causation have been satisfied. An applicant is able to make an appeal, whether the question involved is the severity of disablement or the causation of the case. Usually the uncertainty is about causation. It is much easier to reach a determination about the extent of disability. It is much more difficult to prove that the damage or disability is caused by vaccination.
Various problems may arise, such as when the vaccination took place, the stage at which the disability was discovered, and whether there was a long gap between one and the other. These factors are often very difficult to prove, particularly if it is necessary to go back many years into history.
The right to go to a tribunal is a full one. It is really a two-stage process, inasmuch as the Secretary of State first reaches a conclusion on the balance of probability. That is the first stage. Then, if the applicant is dissatisfied and wishes to go to a tribunal, he can do so, and it may be that additional information will be brought forward to produce a different ccnsequence. I hope that I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's problem.

Mr. Graham Page: The Secretary of State has on several occasions referred to the claimant appealing or having the right to go to the tribunal. Is it the Secretary of State who has to refer the case to the tribunal or is there an appeal by the claimant to the tribunal?

Mr. Ennals: It is not the Secretary of State who refers a matter to the tribunal; it is the claimant. The claimant, or someone who has claimed on behalf of the disabled person, will receive a reply saying that the Secretary of State is not satisfied, even on the balance of probability. The claimant will at the same time be notified of his right to go before a tribunal. It is the claimant who goes to the tribunal, not the Secretary of State.

Mr. Hodgson: The Secretary of State's colleague, in reply to a previous debate,


talked of 70 out of 400 claims having been processed. Would the Secretary of State say something about the number of claims current or pending?

Mr. Ennals: I think there has been a total of roughly 2,000 claims made, and one cannot draw too much of a conclusion from the outcome of only 400 of them. One cannot tell whether they were representative of the rest. This has already happened before the Bill has become law. Once the Bill becomes law, one would expect to find a further group of people applying. At this stage we cannot know how many will apply or what proportion of the claimants at the first stage will be adjudged by the Secretary of State to have satisfied the provisions.

Mr. Boscawen: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for explaining the right of appeal in clause 3. The difficulties will occur mainly about the degree of disability.

Mr. Ennals: The main difficulties centre around the causation and not the degree of disability.

Mr. Boscawen: Yes, the causation of disability. The notes on clauses refer to clause 3(4), which in the final sentence says:
There is no provision for reference to a tribunal in cases where the claim fails because the conditions in clause 2 are not fulfilled.
The cause of the disablement was covered in clause 1, but the conditions in clause 2 are administrative, where the vaccination took place, the time and on whom. There could be dispute on that, and I should like to know where the right of appeal is.

Mr. Ennals: There is no right of appeal on the conditions of entitlement in clause 2. The date and place of vaccination are factual questions.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

RECONSIDERATION OF DETERMINATIONS AND RECOVERY OF PAYMENTS IN CER- TAIN CASES

Mr. Boscawen: I beg to move amendment no. 15, in page 6, line 23, at end add—
' (6) Any reconsideration of determination and recovery of payment under this section shall be subject at the instance of the applicant or his relatives to appeal to the High Court '.
This amendment sets down the possibility of an appeal to the High Court. The clause deals with cases where there is a reconsideration of a previous determination of a claim, which is a serious matter. It is not concerned with reconsideration on medical grounds or on the causation of the vaccine damage, but perhaps on the grounds of a falsified claim. There should be an appeal to the High Court against the reconsideration. Once a claim has been given it is a serious matter to take it away, and the individual should have an outside right of appeal.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The amendment would pick out one provision of the Bill and apply to it a right of appeal to the High Court. The drafting is defective. I assume that the hon. Gentleman has put down the amendment to raise the question of principle about appeal. It would not be appropriate in a Bill dealing with a limited scheme of this kind to provide an elaborate apparatus of appeal. The claims will first be considered by the Secretary of State, In all cases there will be a right to have the original decision reviewed by the independent medical tribunal. It is not appropriate to provide for further proceedings about the facts of the case. In some circumstances disputed points of law can be raised in the courts in the ordinary way.
8.15 p.m.
Clause 5 deals with the case where a favourable decision has been given, payment has been made and it is subsequently found that it was not due because the Secretary of State or the tribunal, in determining the case, had been in ignorance of or had made a mistake about some material fact. If this is shown to be so and the original decision is reconsidered, the Secretary of State can require repayment, unless the


recipient can show that the misrepresentation or failure occurred without his connivance or consent. If the fault lies with a third party, the payee will not be liable to repay.
In these circumstances, repayment will be rare and may never occur. But in order to protect public funds if there is a blatant instance of a payment being irregularly obtained, such a provision should be included. If the change in the determination arises because, on the facts eventually brought to light, a claim is refused on grounds relating to the cause or the extent of the disability, the claimant can contest the Secretary of State's fresh determination through the tribunal. After all this, if the claimant still considers that he should not repay, he would refuse to pay and the Secretary of State would have to sue him for repayment. If the claimant considered that repayment was not legally due, he would be able to argue that in court.
It is unnecessary to add to these various remedies a specific provision for appeal to the High Court. It is also not clear on what grounds the High Court could set aside a decision that repayment was due. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Boscawen: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. This was a probing amendment to discover the position of appeal in a serious case. it is clear from what he said that an aggrieved individual would have a right to appeal in a medical case to an independent tribunal, and, in a case where there might be legal problems, to the court. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

PAYMENTS TO OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF DISABLED PERSONS

Mr. Hodgson: I beg to move amendment no. 16, in page 7, line 4, at end add—
' (5) A payment to or in respect of any person under Section 1(1) above and the right to receive such payment shall be disregarded in applying any enactment or instrument under

which regard is had to, or may be had to, a person's means.'
The purpose behind the amendment is to write into the Bill the provision that the £10,000 payment made under clause 1 shall be disregarded in the award of any means-tested social security benefits. The reasons for this are quite clear.
I raised this matter on Second Reading and the Secretary of State replied:
The Supplementary Benefits Commission has agreed that if the damaged person is a child it will ignore the £10,000 payment. If the damaged person is an adult, the payment will be taken into account and the Commission will give sympathetic consideration to the special circumstances."—[Official Report, 5 February, 1979; Vol. 962, c. 47.]
Obviously, while that is a reassuring reply —I thank the Secretary of State for it—it means that there is no legal remedy. There is only a commitment given by the Secretary of State on the Floor of the House. I wonder how satisfactory it is for the beneficiaries under this Bill to be' dependent upon the Supplementary Benefits Commission, Professor Donnison and his successors, since their interpretation will be critical. The fact that the Secretary of State has said this on the Floor of the House will not have any legal force in years to come.
The value of social security benefit is very great. In paragraph 182 of the Pearson report this is dealt with in detail. It points out how a person who is totally incapacitated is likely to receive about £150,000 in a lifetime, and that the payments are inflation-proofed and most of them are free of tax. It is very important that it should be perfectly clear once and for all that eligibility for means-tested benefit will not be affected by the acceptance of this sum.
The cause for concern has been dramatised in two ways. Here I go back again to Pearson and to the explanatory notes which the Secretary of State has kindly provided on this Bill. The explanatory notes on clause 6(4) point out that the clause provides, however, that
if a payment has been made, a court in awarding damages in respect of such disablement shall treat the payment made under the Bill as paid on account of any damages.
It is perfectly clear, as I read it, that if there is a subsequent award of damages, the £10,000 is to be disregarded. This takes us into the realms of Pearson. It follows precisely the lines that Pearson


argued in chapter 13, dealing with offsets. He said, in paragraphs 475 and 476:
We think the time has come for full co-ordination of the compensation provided by tort and social security. An injured person, or his dependants, should not have the same need met twice, not only because it is inequitable, but because it is wasteful. This principle has been adopted in most countries where compensation may be provided through both tort and social insurance.
Our conclusion is that there should be no overlap between the compensation provided by tort and that provided by social security.
If we have in this Bill a clear undertaking that an award from the courts will not be allowed to overlap and will be disregarded—I quote again from Pearson, in paragraph 480:
We think that the deduction should be made both from damages for an injured plaintiff and from damages for dependants in the case of a fatal accident. The arguments for avoiding overlap between tort and social security seem to us to apply with equal force in both cases.
The concern is that since this is a preview of what will emerge in regard to Lord Pearson's report, and since it has been decided to follow Pearson on damages awarded in the courts, it has become alarming to some of the dependants and to the disabled themselves that if that principle is extended we are likely to have a situation where eligibility for means-tested benefits, particularly supplementary benefit, will be affected by taking up this £10,000.
In order to clarify this matter—and I do not doubt for a moment what the Minister will say—we want to write into the Bill the undertaking that the Secretary of State gave on Second Reading on 5 February. We want that embodied once and for all on the face of the legislation.

Mr. Ennals: I think that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) did not expect that I would accept the amendment. He recognises that its effect would be that the £10,000 payment would be disregarded in any assessment of the resources of the disabled person or his trustees for the purpose of determining their eligibility for means-tested benefits, including legal aid and supplementary benefit.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that means-tested benefits are provided only in cases of need, where the applicant lacks sufficient personal resources. That

is the principle underlying both the payment of supplementary benefit and the payment of legal aid, as the law stands.
The hon. Member raised the question of damages. Compensation awards made by the courts in respect of damage, for example, are not distinguished from other resources, except in certain very unusual circumstances.
Concerning legal aid, the position under present legislation is that an award of £10,000 made under the Bill would have to be taken into account in just the same way as any other capital sum, however that sum was derived. As the hon. Member may know, the other place is currently considering a Bill which is designed to make some changes in the legal aid scheme. I understand that the Lord Chancellor is considering the effect of the payment of an award under the Bill in any future application by or on behalf of a vaccine-damaged child for legal aid to seek redress in respect of the damage caused. I certainly cannot give any undertaking at this stage, but I hope to be able to consult the Lord Chancellor about this matter.
On the question of supplementary benefit, I intervened in the debate on Second Reading, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I can really do little more than say what I said then. I explained in that debate that the Supplementary Benefits Commission had already agreed to disregard payments made under the Bill which are held in trust for children and to take account of any special circumstances in the case of adults, dependent upon the particular nature of the expenditure on behalf of that adult.
It would certainly not be possible to make a general exception for this payment and, at the same time, to retain the spirit of the supplementary benefits scheme. By the very nature of the scheme, financial resources available to a claimant must be taken into account when the level of payment to him is being considered, unless there are some very special circumstances.

Mr. Boscawen: Will the right hon. Gentleman elaborate this point? Is the chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission entitled to make that disregard without reference to the House of Commons in changing the regulations? Has he a discretion to do that?

Mr. Ennals: Yes. The Supplementary Benefits Commission has a good deal of discretion. When it looks at the question of the amount of capital that is available, in this particular case it may look at the way in which certain expenditure is being made from a trust—for instance, whether some conversions have been or are about to be made to a house. It may be that work is being undertaken which will cost £2,000 and that that is being done for the benefit of the disabled child, and that it comes from the £10,000 and it is part of the trust. That factor would be taken into consideration.
That is what I meant when I said in the House that there might be special circumstances. Those are the special circumstances. The chairman of the commission assured me that the commission would look at those sorts of special circumstances—the nature of the payment —when deciding the level of capital which could be considered when deciding whether a person was entitled to a supplementary benefit.
If carried, the amendment would set a very dangerous precedent, as there is no particular reason why this concept should be restricted to this Bill. If we were to say that this particular sum of money made available by the Bill would be disregarded for the purposes of supplementary benefit and legal aid, we might find ourselves doing the same, the precedent having been created, for other sums of money. It would undermine the basis of supplementary benefit, which takes these resources into consideration—and the same concerning legal aid.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Hodgson: In the light of the Minister's comments and the fact that we wanted to use the amendment as a probe to discuss the response of the Supplementary Benefits Commission to these special circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 7 to 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without amendment.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. Ennals: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I should like to take the opportunity to reply to the debate, if there is one.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: I have not taken part in any of the proceedings on the Bill, but I should like to say a few words at this juncture because I have a special Scottish constituency problem. As the Bill applies equally to Scotland as to the rest of the United Kingdom, I think that I am entitled to put the facts before the House in the hope that the appropriate Government Department will take action.
When the original announcement was made regarding compensation for vaccine-damaged children, I was called to a constituent's house to look at a child who was incapacitated both mentally and physically. The parents informed me that in their opinion it was due to the Salk vaccination which the child had many years before. They said that up to the time of vaccination the child was perfectly normal and happy. Therefore, they asked me to investigate whether the child would be eligible for such compensation as would be available.
I took up the case with the Scottish Office. In the meanwhile, between the vaccination and the raising of the problem with me, there had been a complete reorganisation of the National Health Service, of local government and of schools. It was impossible to get at the papers. It was not clear where the vaccination had been carried out. I found it impossible to establish responsibility for the vaccination. There the matter rested and still rests.
There might be other similar cases where, because of reorganisation within the Health Service or local government, records have been lost or mislaid. I do not know whether the Bill covers such cases. There must be records somewhere relating to the child to whom I have referred. If not, I should like to be assured that machinery is available which will allow a degree of flexibility and humanity to deal with such a case.
This is a magnificently humane Bill. It is highly apt that in a civilised society like ours, faced with enormous crises, this House should devote a considerable amount of time to debate this matter. I applaud the Minister, the Department and the Government for finding the time and


the cash to deal with a problem of this kind. I hope that it will not be sullied by a lack of flexibility in dealing with the kind of case I have mentioned.

Dr. Vaughan: We, on this side, endorse what the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) has said. This is a very humane Bill, which we strongly welcome. It has a significance far greater than simply the awarding of a sum of money to these families. It explores new ground. That has emerged clearly from some of the points that have been raised and the answers given by the Secretary of State during the debate.
The House will be watching carefully to see how the Bill works out. The measure is a direct result of a devoted and exceptionally persuasive campaign by Mrs. Fox and members of the Association of Parents of Vaccine-Damaged Children. Their efforts show how much can be achieved by a small group of people who have a just cause and do not give up in the face of what appears to be opposition in the early stages. We would also like again to pay a warm tribute to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). Despite some of his comments, he has been a magnificent supporter of this Bill.
The campaign and the Bill have led to considerable benefits. The medical professions are already examining their attitude to the causes of disability. They are also examining more carefully the vaccination advice they give to parents. That can only have widespread benefits. Those professions have become much more careful over the criteria for not giving vaccination. They have looked again at the safety and the efficacy of some kinds of immunisation, particularly immunisation against whooping cough. All these developments flow from the activities of Mrs. Fox and her group and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South and the Government's recognition of the need to take action.
There is also the important parliamentary significance. The Government on behalf of society have recognised that where people do something for the public good at the request of society, ensuring that sufficient people are immunised to prevent major epidemics, the Government and society have a responsibility when

things go wrong. That is the basis for the payments we have been discussing.
A terrible personal human tragedy is involved for the families who are affected. The difference between the disabilities we are discussing and many other kinds of disability is that parents of a normal healthy child decide that they will respond to the Government's policy and have their child immunised. A child who was alert and normal becomes, as a result of a rare but tragic accident, a vegetable or a very damaged person who will need care and attention for the rest of his life. There are not only practical problems. We also have to recognise the guilt, doubts and anxieties which parents suffer after this awful event.
We believe that the Bill will be welcomed as a humane action by all sections of society. We on this side congratulate the Secretary of State and the Government on bringing the Bill before the House.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Ennals: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) for what he said. It is all too rare that a Government can bring forward a Bill that everyone welcomes. In a sense, this is a modest Bill. The amount of public expenditure involved is not enormous and the number of those who will benefit runs into hundreds rather than thousands or tens of thousands, but each individual and his family will benefit from what the House has decided to do.
My interest and commitment in the matter started before I met Mrs. Fox and her committee. It arose from a case in my constituency. A mother and father brought their young child to see me. The child was damaged and they had to carry him because he was inert and totally unresponsive. They told me of their conviction that the damage was the result of vaccination. I told them that I would see whether we could do something to help. My inquiries immediately led me to Mrs. Fox and her committee who were vigorously campaigning with the tremendous support of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley)—and there is hardly a more effective campaigner in the House.
I agree with the hon. Member for Reading, South that we have seen one


of the best examples that I have experienced of a group of people, with a cause that they know is right, changing the course of events. They achieved results because of the way they campaigned. They did not cause any antagonism. They spoke from the depths of their own experience and suffering and their sense of responsibility for their children. They have been responsible, helpful, forthright and wise. They have given guidance about how a scheme could be established and have always understood the difficulties involved. Their campaign was almost a perfect example of how a voluntary organisation should do its job.
The House is proud that we are able to pass this modest measure and I am proud that we were able to get the scheme moving before the Bill became law. We already have 2,000 applicants and our pamphlet is being widely circulated. We are on the brink of making the first payments. We could not have reached that position if we had waited until the Bill became law.
I am sorry that payments have not already been made. Part of the reason is that there was a need for further consideration of the question of the trust and trustees. We had hoped to make the first payments—to about 50 people—before the Bill had its Third Reading. I hope that there will be no further serious delay.
I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for enabling us to get the Bill through so quickly and for their co-operation in agreeing that there was no need for a Committee stage upstairs. We look on the Bill as another product of the Government's tremendous concern for the problems of the handicapped and disabled. I feel a great sense of pride that my right hon. Friend the Minister who is responsible for the disabled has been involved with this Bill, as with so many other measures. The Bill is another product of the commitment of the Government, my right hon. Friend, my party and myself. I am glad that we have been able to proceed so rapidly with this humane measure.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. Ashley: The House will welcome the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I think that I speak for both sides when I thank him for

bringing in the Bill so quickly and for breaking new ground on social policy. It is a great Bill; and, although I have been critical this afternoon, I do not want that criticism to detract in any way from the Bill itself.
I extend my warmest thanks to my right hon. Friend for his work on the Bill. I would like to echo his words about my right hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for the disabled. I understand that there has been an unseen hand, unspoken of so far. I do not know how much influence he has exercised but I believe the Prime Minister was also sympathetically interested in the Bill and I would like to place on record my warm appreciation of his sympathetic interest too.
In extending thanks, the important thing is to say, as my right hon. Friend has said, that one person above all to whom the House must be grateful is Mrs. Rosemary Fox. She is the person who is responsible for the Bill. If I had my way I would call this Bill the Rosemary Fox Bill, because throughout thick and thin, and especially the thin—and there were some very thin times early on—she fought and persisted; and the odds at one time seemed very great. I am speaking now of four or five years ago, a very long time ago.
I saw Mrs. Fox today. She is delighted with the Bill, but she has one or two serious points to make about it and some reservations which I hope the House will allow me to make. Before doing so, I would say that the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) made an extremely important speech on Third Reading.

Mr. Ennals: A very good speech.

Mr. Ashley: I was grateful for it, and the hon. Gentleman was speaking not only as a very respected Member of this House but as a doctor, emphasising that the basic thought behind this Bill is that any damage that may have been done by a State immunisation scheme should be adequately compensated. This Bill does not do that. It does not compensate those families; and my right hon. Friend has recognised that. It is not a Bill to compensate them, and I hope the public will have taken that point. The essential thing is that this is an interim measure, and I hope that the whole House


will bear that in mind, because this Bill is a stop-gap Bill. It is, I hope, the precursor of a far greater measure and one which will adequately recompense, in so far as finance can adequately recompense, the families concerned.
On Second Reading the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) made a very distinguished speech in which he referred to the Pearson committee. In the course of its report the Pearson committee drew attention, as the hon. Member mentioned, to the fact that a man incapacitated at work would, by the age of 65, get £150,000, and that does not allow for the inflation-proofing which would take place. These children have been damaged not as workmen or as men and women but as babies. Therefore, they would have got more. I am not asking now for that payment. I put forward my very modest amendment to the Bill because I was confined by the Bill; but I know that my right hon. Friend is aware of that larger problem and I hope that the whole House will bear in mind the need for proper and adequate provision, and that hon. Members will regard this Bill as a springboard for a proper compensation scheme for these children.
One final point arising from the Bill is that the scheme itself, as it is spelt out in the Bill, is giving great anxiety to the parents. I welcome what was said by my right hon. Friend about his awareness of the need for further consideration of the question of the trust. In a letter, Mrs. Rosemary Fox wrote the following:
There is a clear agreement between the Department of Health and Social Security officials and us"—
she is referring to her organisation—
that payment will be made simply, i.e. parents would be asked to provide details of arrangements made to invest half the money for the child. Three Government solicitors took part in the discussions which led to the above agreement.
Mrs. Fox was speaking unofficially and I cannot commit the Government. I certainly cannot hold the Government to discussions that took place privately. I am merely drawing the attention of the House to the fact that parents are concerned with this trust, and I wish to appeal to my right hon. Friend to bear these points in mind, as I am sure he will. My right hon. Friend is as anxious as anybody to ensure that the trust is

dealt with in a humane way. I think that the trust could not be in better hands than those of my right hon. Friend. I am sure that he will ensure that the trust is dealt with properly and humanely.
I conclude by saying that my right hon. Friend has introduced a measure which will be warmly welcomed throughout the country. One additional value of the Bill is that it will strengthen the immunisation scheme. I wish to echo my right hon. Friend's words about the immunisation scheme. I strongly support that scheme, and this Bill will show the country that the tiny minority of children who are damaged by immunisation—I emphasise that it is a minute fraction—are taken care of by the Government. It will strengthen the scheme. That is one of the great virtues of the Bill.
I wish to express warm congratulations to my right hon. Friend, and I express appreciation to him on behalf of many families.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

AIREDALE (TRUNK ROAD)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Marshall.]

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I am pleased to have this opportunity to set out a number of issues on the proposed Airedale trunk road and to seek from the Minister a number of assurances for the future.
The background to the present proposal goes back more than 10 years. In 1968 an Aire valley motorway was proposed which, when revealed in 1973, would have been highly intrusive and expensive and would in no way have relieved local traffic conditions on the A650-A629 trunk road. For example, there was only one southbound entry possible near Silsden, and entry at Keighley was by means of a massive interchange. The motorway affected 116 houses in the Stockbridge area of Keighley, and there was a likelihood of several schools in the Aire valley being closed or polluted by noise.
I opposed the proposed motorway before, during and after election to this House. After my representations were made repeatedly by means of questions and an Adjournment debate, and a visit to the site by my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Transport, the motorway proposal was withdrawn. The civil servants of the then Department of the Environment were required to produce a means of providing genuine relief to the crowded traffic conditions on the existing trunk road.
On 18 April 1975 the then Minister of Transport published revised proposals for an Airedale trunk road. This was a dual-carriage trunk road, which was much less intrusive than the motorway, following, for example, in Keighley the line of the link road and abandoning the line of the old motorway proposal entirely. In consequence, almost 100 houses were removed from the threat of the bulldozer.
I welcomed the proposal in the following terms—I quote from the Keighley News of 18 April 1975:
I welcome the new proposals since it is clear criticisms arising from the now abandoned motorway project which I raised on several occasions in the House of Commons have largely been met. Commentators, who suggested that the new all-purpose trunk road would simply follow the motorway route, have been proved wrong. The new proposal is radically different in several respects. First, it will be less disruptive in the valley, the route avoids several beauty spots and walks and is the more likely to bring genuine traffic relief to the A650 and the A629. In Keighley its most welcome feature is that the houses formerly affected in the Stockbridge area are totally avoided and only about 11 houses as opposed to 90 under the old scheme will be demolished.
I should point out at this stage that support for relief to the existing A629 and A650 trunk roads and a welcome for the trunk road proposal do not in any way indicate that I support further construction of motorways or similar roads in a massive way, or that I support the views of the British Road Federation and its cohorts. It means that the level of traffic on the trunk road is too high for comfort and that some bypass, in the form of a trunk road, will be of significant benefit to my constituents in many ways.
The matter was not entirely finished, however, because the trunk road was a proposal. Occasionally some Tory county councillor or some Tory Member of

Parliament associated with the Aire valley would make noises about the desirability of the old motorway route and in so doing throw cold water over the hopes and aspirations of the people of Stockbridge whose houses had been blighted for so long and who had seen the blight almost, though not quite entirely, removed. Hence, I have pressed for a public inquiry to be held so that a decision on the proposal can be made.
Unfortunately, that inquiry came at a watershed in the road construction programme. While there was not, apparently, one objection to the M1, questions were subsequently raised regarding the future supply of oil, the effectiveness of the road lobby and the inroad that it had made into the Department of the Environment, so that there was a great deal of suspicion about the handling of the public inquiry and its fairness. Incidentally, recent reports by civil servants, producing attitudes of the public accepting heavy lorries, do not diminish in some people's minds that sense of suspicion.
Interruptions brought the inquiry to a halt. While I can understand the genuine questioning of the issues involved, I cannot condone the disruption that ended the inquiry and left my constituents in Stockbridge still uncertain and those at Utley, Steeton and Eastburn facing dreadful traffic conditions with no prospect of relief.
It is worth pointing out that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) raised in the House circumstances where, in another public inquiry held at Sheffield, an employer gave his workers time off to go to the inquiry and paid them wages at the hall. The employees were extremely disruptive, shouting down those who sought, quite properly, to object to the proposed extension, which many thought obtrusive and liable to have adverse environmental effects.
Disruption can be a two-edged sword. I hope, from the assurances that I receive tonight, that the Minister can show that all the questions regarding fairness and impartiality will be met at the inquiry into the new proposal for the Airedale trunk road. The latest proposal announced by my hon. Friend the Minister on 11 July last year is very close


to the original trunk road proposal published in 1975. Prior to July, when the position was not quite clear, due to public expenditure cuts, I called on the Minister to clarify the situation and either end the proposal or go ahead and substitute for that proposal a series of bypasses.
This brought a public invitation to see the difficulties faced by a constituent, a Mrs. Margaret Wood, a milklady who delivered milk in the Utley area of Keighley. She said:
I am in full agreement … about the need for a new Aire Valley trunk road. I would like Mr. Cryer to come and deliver milk with me on the Utley main road, between 6.45–7.30 a.m. and see how the traffic is already building up. Talk about dicing with death. Even crossing on the pelican isn't safe. If I crossed when told to do so without checking the traffic first I would have been dead by now. Only this morning a driver went through when the lights were at red, when I was waiting to cross. And as for getting out on to the main road from Silver Grove at 8.30 a.m., there's no chance, unless some kind person lets you out. I'm sure I would save half an hour of each day, besides making my job much easier, if I hadn't all the hazards of this road to contend with.
Living in the constituency, as I do, I travel on the trunk road frequently. But criss-crossing the road on that early morning in 1977 reinforced my views that some traffic relief is vitally necessary to give the people who live on the side of the trunk road some relief from the traffic noise, congestion and danger.
Following disruptions at the Airedale inquiry, new rules governing inquiries were introduced—the Highways Inquiries Procedure Rules 1976. These widened the rights of objectors to require the Seccretary of State to reopen an inquiry if he takes into account new evidence or any new issue of fact 'that was not raised at the inquiry. However, this clarification and improvement in the conduct of inquiries was followed by the Leitch report, published in January last year, and in April 1978 Cmnd. 7133 contained the conclusions of a review of highway inquiry procedures conducted largely by the Council on Tribunals.
I do not think that any potential objector can claim that the conduct of public inquiries has been ignored. Indeed, it has been subjected to a most comprehensive and thorough examination. Hower, if people are to feel that their case is to be fairly examined, the recommenda-

tions for improvement must be applied, and I should like to ask my hon. Friend for a number of assurances.
First, can my hon. Friend confirm his press release of July last year that the inspector appointed to conduct the inquiry will be appointed not by his Department but by the Lord Chancellor as a demonstration of the clear independence of the inspector at the inquiry and freedom from any possible shadow of influence from the Department? Secondly, can he confirm that, as a result of the Leitch committee report, revised national traffic forecasts have been adopted by his Department and that these will form the basis of forecasts and standards presented to the inquiry?
Will he confirm that opportunities will be provided to objectors to question the Department on these matters, as indicated in paragraph 26 of the report on highway inquiry procedures? Will he assure me that his Department will be prepared to provide the facts and assumptions on which the case for the scheme is based and any other relevant information which can be provided without costly special research? To this end, does my hon. Friend intend to provide effective library and information facilities shortly before and during the inquiry?
With this in mind, can he also provide space for any objectors' exhibits so that the inquiry does not take on the appearance of a Department of Transport exercise but retains the appearance of its true purpose—an examination of the factors for and against the road proposal? In addition, can he state whether paragraph 40 of the report on highway inquiry procedures will be implemented for the Airedale route inquiry—that is, a pre-inquiry procedural meeting to agree a programme for hearing objections, and especially with emphasis on the provision of evening sessions so that working men and women can get to the inquiry since their work would otherwise prevent such attendance? It would also help to give a better balance of opinion and prevent any inquiry from becoming the exclusive province of lawyers, civil servants and perhaps Rowntree Trust specialists. Will the material sent to objectors be based on the wider information envisaged in paragraph 33 of the report, including assumptions made in planning and the general planning of the road programme?
At this stage I should say that the openness of the procedure has improved from the days when I pressed the then Minister to publish the notes for the guidance of inquiry inspectors, which was at first met with refusal. The position has advanced to the present situation where there is a promise to deposit the notes as part of any inquiry material. I assume that this will be fulfilled at the Airedale inquiry. Lastly, can the Minister confirm that written objections will be taken into account and will be published by the inspector and that he will include in his report views expressed by the objectors?
I have raised these questions to ensure that if the Minister confirms these points it can be demonstrated that the inquiry procedure is totally fair and above board, and that there is no ground whatever—if, indeed, there ever was—for any objector to attempt to wreck any inquiry. The wrecking tactics so far have caused delay and have resulted in a lack of certainty to many of my constituents.
I accept that some people have legitimate objections, and I am concerned to ensure that inquiries are fair. Inquiries are an important means of ensuring that all views are conveyed to the Minister through a detailed assessment, and supporters also have a right to attend an inquiry and state why they feel that a route should be preferred.
But remarks such as those reported in the Bradford Telegraph and Argus on 14 February by the deputy leader of Bradford Tories, Councillor Womersley, that objectors had blood on their hands, are a gross distortion of the position and only encourage confrontation instead of the intelligent and reasonable assessment of the road proposal that is necessary.
Councillor Womersley has, unfortunately, a record of simply trying to discredit those who oppose him, without considering matters sensibly and weighing the arguments, as he demonstrated in his attacks on proposals to preserve Temple Street Methodist church and Sunday school for use as a resource centre in Keighley. Such methods are bound to reflect to his disadvantage and to the discredit of the Conservative majority on Bradford council.
On the other hand, concern has been expressed that no details have been published on the way in which the proposed

road will link up with other roads, especially at the Shipley end. In the Minister's press release in July last year he said that a further announcement would be made about the continuation of the route beyond Shipley before any inquiry was held. I have no doubt that he will wish to reaffirm that.
Some people might be taking entrenched positions, and one inquiry for the whole road might result in a concentration on the controversial areas at the southern end of the route. As an example of entrenchment, I use the example of a house that was to be demolished under the old motorway proposal but is entirely freed under the current plan. The owner of that house is quoted as saying that "They"—presumably the Department of Transport—"have not learnt a thing … the battle will be even more fierce." Certainly, under my representations the Department learnt that it was better to preserve that man's house than to crush it under a motorway.
There is a need to make a decision as soon as possible and to end the uncertainty. The £7,000 grant by the Department of Transport to Stockbridge householders to assist with the making up of private street works and the indication by the West Yorkshire county council that it is to go ahead with those works constitute a boost to confidence for the area. I am pleased that my representations resulted in successful negotiations by the Department of Transport.
We must hold the inquiry as soon as possible so that a decision can be made. It may be helpful if the Minister gives urgent consideration to the possibility of holding two inquiries or splitting the inquiry into two sessions. One could be held in Keighley to deal with the road between the junction of the existing trunk road and the preferred route near Kildwick, to the point where the proposed trunk road crosses the A650 at Crossflatts. That would ensure that objectors to the rest of the route would recognise that should their objectives be accepted and only the top half be constructed, a link could be made into the existing trunk road. In other words, acceptance of one half would not prejudice the position of the other.
The second half of the inquiry, or session, could be held in Bingley or Shipley. However the inquiry is held, if a decision


is reached to proceed with the construction of the proposed trunk road, I urge the Minister to ensure that the northernmost section between Keighley and Kildwick is constructed first. That would bring much-needed relief to that area of my constituency which is threaded by the existing trunk road.
Living alongside that road must, in many circumstances, be almost nightmarish. Certainly parents of children at Steeton primary school have recently made strong representations to me about the dangers for children crossing the road to school.
I do not seek a road that will generate traffic; I seek one that will give real relief to the existing trunk road. I ask that that relief be introduced as soon as possible, bearing in mind the necessary processes that must be undertaken before construction can begin. That involves relief in the short term for the residents of Utley, Steeton and Eastburn and also for the residents of Stockbridge, who wish to see their area generated and restored and their houses returned to the open market.
In the long term, we must recognise that transport methods will change, that oil is finite in supply and that in 25 or 30 years the emphasis will swing more to public transport because of fuel usage.
In the Aire valley we have an excellent railway which is being improved. Keighley station has recently received a facelift, following long and persistent representations. However, there are means of reducing to some degree the traffic congestion in the Aire valley in the near future whilst improving what must be one of our most precious transport assets —the railway. That is an asset that many people in the current weather are finding more and more valuable.
Will my hon. Friend give serious consideration to the provision of special investment grants to help generate further rail traffic through the provision of park-and-ride stations? Steeton and Silsden station is one such site, and a rail halt for Airedale hospital would also be of value.
There are other sites, such as Cross-hills, but they are outside my constituency. The 1974 Railways Act provides for grant aid for freight sidings, but specific

grants for passenger facilities would be of considerable help in the context of relieving traffic and developing our railway network, rather than leaving such investment solely to British Rail or the passenger transport authority. The provision of such facilities may be at far greater cost than many realise. Perhaps my hon. Friend will confirm that provision may be made in the transport support grant for passenger transport authorities.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving consideration to these matters. I know that he understands the problems associated with the proposed road, and he has listened sympathetically both to me and to the delegations of those affected. I hope that tonight he will give the necessary assurances so that the inquiry, or inquiries, into the road proposal may go ahead on the basis of fairness but with reasonable speed so that the 10 year saga may draw to an end in the near future.
I conclude by quoting from the report on the review of highway inquiry procedures. It sums up what is needed. It states that
While objectors must be given the opportunity of having their case fully and fairly heard, unnecessary delays which are costly to all participants must be avoided. The Government is particularly concerned that people living in the area directly affected by the road proposals should not suffer from the blighting effect of those proposals any longer than is absolutely necessary. Objections need to be fully and fairly considered but the time taken must be kept within bounds in order to reduce the period of uncertainty and blight. These two considerations may conflict. A balance has to be struck so that while all relevant objections are heard, the inquiry is not stretched out by repetition, or delayed by filibustering or disruption.
I hope that that paragraph will apply. I hope that the inquiry will soon be held. I hope that it will not be stretched out by repetition or delay. I hope that certainty will be brought to an area of uncertainty that has existed for nearly 10 years.

9.2 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam): My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) has rightly drawn attention to the length of time that the question of a new road has been hanging over the people of Airedale. I know of his deep concern and his


long record of activity on behalf of his constituents. We are anxious that matters should be resolved as quickly as possible in a calm and objective atmosphere with a clear possibility for all sides of the argument to put their case in that atmosphere.
It is appropriate for me briefly to explain why events have taken so long to reach the present stage after the abortive public inquiry that began in 1975. Much has happened since then. White Papers have been published on transport policy, policy for roads and the review of highway inquiry procedures. Further, the Leitch committee has reported on trunk road assessment.
We need to be sure that our proposals for the Aire valley are sensible in the light of the developments, especially the Leitch committee report, the highway inquiry procedures and transport policy provisions. In addition, we have been gathering more information about soil conditions in the area and considering alternative solutions. In short, we have generally reassessed the options open to us to resolve the traffic problems in the Aire valley.
My right hon. Friend discussed the Aire valley problems with local councillors from West Yorkshire and Bradford last year, after which he announced his view that a new road was the most sensible solution. Consequently, revised proposals for the line of a new road were duly published on 15 December 1978. A series of local exhibitions was held at various places in the Aire valley during January 1979 to publicise and explain the proposals. Despite the appalling weather throughout that period, attendances were good. One exhibition due to be held at Keighley on Saturday 20 January had to be cancelled at the last minute because of exceptionally bad travelling conditions. However, we are making arrangements for another exhibition to be held there before the objection period ends, as it does, next month.
I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion—it was put forward in a question earlier this year—that the proposals for the new road might be considered in sections at the forthcoming public inquiry, and that in particular priority might be given to hearing the arguments for and

against that part of the route between Keighley and Kildwick.
In my answer on 25 January I explained that that would not now be practicable. The proposal has been published as such in one draft order and the inquiry must consider all objections to any part of the route. If we had to take on board my hon Friend's suggestion and there were to be two separate inquiries, we would have to republish the existing order in two separate sections. That would mean a delay of possibly three months. As we are all anxious to make progress as rapidly as possible, that would be a mistake. Therefore, it would be right to continue with our existing practice of dealing with this by means of one order and one inquiry.
However, I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety on the issues. I am able to help in one respect. Bearing in mind my hon. Friend's concern about the Keighley to Kildwick section, we have in mind, if the decision of the inspector is in favour of the road, to publish our proposals for alterations to other local roads, to footpaths, and also our proposals for acquiring land for this section of the route—the Keighley to Kildwick section—as soon as a decision is announced following the public inquiry into the main line of the road. This will enable us to get on quickly with building this part of the new road. My hon. Friend may be assured that the section about which he is most concerned—the Keighley to Kildwick section—will proceed as fast as possible, in advance of the remaining section of the road.
As to the timing of the public inquiry, we must give priority to establishing the route for the new road. We expect to start the public inquiry into this matter by the end of the year. It is too soon as yet to give my hon. Friend an exact date. There is a great deal of preparatory work still to be done. We are obtaining further information about traffic and environmental matters which has already been given to the objectors.
I note my hon. Friend's view that the inquiry should be held at the earliest practical date. I assure him that we shall endeavour to see that it takes place as soon as possible this year. However, it is likely to be towards the end of the year rather than earlier.
I sincerely hope that everyone will see the value of taking the opportunity afforded by the inquiry to have a detailed and objective look at traffic problems in the Aire valley and how best to resolve them. This will be in all our interests after the frustrations and uncertainties suffered over the scheme by the people of the valley in the past few years. A repetition of the unhappy events of the last Airedale inquiry could do irreparable harm to the prospects of early relief from traffic congestion and other serious problems associated with the overcrowded roads in the valley.
I turn to my hon. Friend's points, on which he asked me for various assurances. The new inquiry will be held under the 1976 highways inquiries procedural rules and in accordance with the new procedural arrangements for inquiries introduced last year following the report on the review of highway inquiry procedures, in which my hon. Friend has shown a close interest.
Taking my hon. Friend's remarks point by point, he asked me first to confirm, as we said in the press release of July last, that the inspector appointed to conduct the inquiry would be appointed not by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment but by the Lord Chancellor. I confirm that that will indeed be so. The inspector will be appointed by the Lord Chancellor and not by my right hon. Friends.
Secondly, my hon. Friend asked me to confirm that, as a result of the Leitch committee, we now have the revised traffic forecasts which have been adopted by the Department. He asked whether these would form the basis of the forecasts in this case. Certainly they will. The forecasts with which we shall go to the public inquiry in the case of the Airedale valley scheme will be the post-Leitch revised forecasts. Thirdly, my hon. Friend asked me to ensure that opportunity was given to objectors to question the Department on matters such as these traffic forecasts as indicated in paragraph 26 of the report on highway inquiry procedures. The answer is "Yes". The objectors will be given opportunities to question departmental officials on these technical matters.
Fourthly, my hon. Friend asked for an assurance that the Department would be prepared to provide the facts and assumptions on which the case for the scheme was based and any other relevant information that could be provided without costly special research. The answer is "Yes". To this end, I was asked whether I intended to provide effective library and information facilities shortly before and during the inquiry. We shall provide library facilities and other information facilities which we feel are appropriate.
With that in mind I was asked, sixthly, whether I could provide space for objectors' exhibits so that the inquiry did not take on the appearance of a Department of Transport exercise alone. Certainly we have no objection to that. Indeed, it is interesting to note that, when we put on show some exhibits in Bingley in the past few months concerned with the orders that we published in December, the objectors put on show their own exhibits on the way to our exhibits. We made no comment on that. We were glad to accept that they had the right to put their point of view just as we have a right to put ours. Certainly we have no objection at all to that if any objectors wish to do it.
My hon. Friend, in his seventh point, asked whether paragraph 40 of the report on the highway inquiry procedures would be implemented for the Airedale route inquiry—that is, whether there would be pre-inquiry procedural meetings to agree on a programme. That is absolutely at the discretion of the inspector. It is the inspector who decides how an inquiry shall be conducted. It will be for the inspector to decide whether there shall be pre-inquiry proceedings. But I imagine that, in this particular case, the inspector would want to have such pre-inquiry meetings in order to establish the ground rules concerning what was relevant in the inquiry and other matters of that kind.
My hon. Friend's eighth point was about evening sessions. That is a very understandable point, because many people cannot get to meetings in the morning or afternoon as they are working. If they are unable to attend, the meeting becomes a dialogue between often well-paid professionals. Ordinary members of the public may well feel that they are excluded from the proceed


ings. This, again, is a matter for the inspector. He has absolute discretion to decide at what times the inquiry meetings shall proceed. But I imagine that he will take this point into account when making his decisions on the timing of the inquiry meetings.
My hon. Friend also asked whether the materials sent to objectors will be based on the wider information envisaged in paragraph 33 of the report, including assumptions made on planning and the general planning of the road programme. The answer is that such material will be provided on the wider basis to which I have referred.
My hon. Friend referred to a promise to deposit notes for guidance as part of any inquiry material, and asked whether this promise will be fulfilled at the Airedale inquiry. The answer is "Yes". The deposit of notes in that way is now almost standard practice in major inquiries, and it will be followed in the Airedale inquiry.
My hon. Friend also asked me to confirm that written objections will be taken into account and published by the inspector, and that the inspector will include in his report views expressed by objectors. The inspector decides what to do in this respect. Whether to publish any views put to him is a matter entirely for him. None the less, I am sure that the inspector will take into account all the views expressed to him, even if he does not decide to publish all views in his final report. It is again something that is essential for his discretion.
I think that I have dealt with all the points raised by my hon. Friend concerning the conduct of the inquiry. We are as anxious as he is, as I have indicated, that it should be conducted in a fair and open manner, so that everyone with a legitimate point of view to present can make it with absolute freedom and confidence that his point of view will be heard.
In relation to the immediate road proposals, my hon. Friend reminded me that in the press release of July, in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out his decision as to the scheme that he was putting forward, he indicated that there was a need to consider what would happen at the eastern end of the route, beyond Shipley, because that is of considerable importance in the general

road planning of Bradford and Leeds as well as of Shipley, Keighley and Bingley. I confirm that it is our intention to make an announcement on what is known as the Shipley-Thackley-Leeds scheme, which is relevant to what happens at the eastern end of the Airedale valley scheme, before the public inquiry takes place. As I have said, it will probably be towards the end of this year.
The results of our consultations on the Shipley-Thackley-Leeds scheme are being re-examined in the light of the decision that the M1 to A1 Kirkhamgate to Dish-forth route should go to the east of Leeds. My hon. Friend is well acquainted with that. I can assure him that the decisions reached on the scheme will be announced before the public inquiry.
My hon. Friend has been to see me twice on the important matter of planning blight, in particular in the area in my hon. Friend's constituency known as Stockbridge. In May 1977 and July 1978 I met a deputation of local residents led by my hon. Friend. It pressed for the making up of private streets and the disposal of the Department's properties in a housing estate at Stockbridge in Keighley. After discussion with the West Yorkshire metropolitan county council, the Department agreed to make an ex gratia contribution towards the cost of making up certain private streets on the Stockbridge housing estate. It was reasoned that the Airedale scheme had delayed work and caused it to be more expensive than had it been done in 1970. We were thereby agreeing to the representations of the delegation.
The Department's contribution represented the difference between the 1970 and 1978 cost, which is slightly over £7,000. The West Yorkshire metropolitan county council has informed us that it is prepared to accept the Department's offer and will give the Stockbridge housing estate scheme priority immediately after schemes already in its list, provided that the committe concerned is satisfied that there is sufficient support for the scheme from frontagers likely to be affected.
My latest information is that the council has contacted the frontagers to ascertain their view. I have no further information on when the likely improvements will start. I shall keep my hon. Friend in touch with developments. I know of his concern about the problem


of blight, which is particularly acute in this case.
Finally, my hon. Friend raised the separate but equally important question of rail facilities in the Aire valley. He asked whether the Government could provide additional grants for the development of the line generally and, in particular, provision of additional passenger facilities, such as park-and-ride stations. First, he will be aware that in the transport policy White Paper published two years ago there was an additional grant for the renewal of the assets of the railway passenger business. This, in effect, changed the system whereby we gave British Rail the right to borrow money for the renewal of assets and converted it into a grant. It no longer had to pay interest, and this was sensible for its own financial operations and, as it had no interest to pay, it had more money for this purpose. We have been relatively generous on the general question of investment and development on the passenger side of British Rail, in addition to the section 8 grants and the development of the freight side.
Additionally, my hon. Friend will be aware that it is possible for the local authority—in this case the West Yorkshire metropolitan county council—if it so wishes, to develop the railway line in the way that he suggested. That can be done under the transport policy and programme procedures. Having done so, it can ask the Government for transport supplementary grant, which is granted at the rate of 70 per cent. on all expenditure agreed to.
This is a satisfactory way of taking a general look at transport in any locality. One is able to look at all sorts of schemes, whether roads, railways or parking facilities, consider them as part of a coherent plan and accordingly grant financial support. It makes it possible to plan in a comprehensive and integrated way.
This possibility has been taken up by a number of the larger urban authorities. The Secretary of State opened a new railway line in the Birmingham area which was developed under such a financial and planning framework. That is the right sort of approach in dealing with these problems.
I understand that my hon. Friend wants a balanced approach—as I do—to the problems of the Aire valley. We want a balance between the existing railway lines and public transport facilities, and the provision of a road facility not for its own sake or for the sake of building roads but for the sake of solving some of the safety, environmental, traffic congestion and pollution problems which greatly trouble the people who have to put up with lorries and other traffic thundering past their front doors.
I hope that relief can be provided as rapidly as possible, but that depends on a fair and open inquiry—one in which the people have the confidence to put their points and which is not disrupted by those who seek merely to destroy.

ADJOURNMENT DEBATES

9.31 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Grant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had sought after this Adjournment to raise the subject of violence in our licensed premises. However, I understand that in view of the fact that I have a Private Member's Bill before the House tomorrow on this subject there may be some procedural difficulties. Will you give a ruling?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I am glad that the hon. Member has raised this point. Mr. Speaker has addressed himself to the problem and he has asked me to read out his ruling to the House. It is as follows:
The hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant) has sought leave for a second Adjournment debate on the question of violence in public houses. I wish that I could help the hon. Gentleman, for I know his deep concern about this matter. I am also aware that the hon. Gentleman was at first led to believe that his application would be granted.
However, our standing orders prevent me from allowing the debate which the hon. Member seeks. Under Standing Order No. 11 I am required to have regard to the probability of the matter proposed to be discussed being brought before the House within reasonable time. As the hon. Member is aware, he has a Private Member's Bill on the same subject, and that Bill is second on the Order Paper for discussion tomorrow. In these circumstances I have no choice in the matter, and I regret to have to say that it will be out of order for the hon. Gentleman to proceed with his debate tonight.

Question put and agreed to

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Ten o'clock.